Home    2012

2012

Pub Theologian’s Best of 2012

Uncategorized Comments are closed
Cheers to a good year just ending, and a new one around the bend.
Cheers to a good year just ending, and a new one around the bend.

So this is [New Year’s]
And what have you done?
Another year over
And a new one just begun

And so this is [New Year’s]
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear one
The old and the young

A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let’s hope it’s a good one
Without any fear

~John Lennon

So we’ve hit the end of 2012, which, contra-Mayan, was not the end of the world.

Let’s take a look back at the best of PubTheologian.com for 2012, and find out who our year-end winner is for a signed copy of Pub Theology!

Top Ten Beers

I sampled and enjoyed lots of good brews this year… there were many outstanding offerings, but these are my top ten:

10.  Perseus Porter, Elysian Brewing, Seattle, WA
9.  Ranger IPA, New Belgium, Fort Collins, CO
8. Satisfaction ESB, Right Brain Brewery, Traverse City, MI
7. Mayan Mocha Stout, Odd Side Ales, Grand Haven, MI
6.  Double Cream Stout, Bell’s Brewing, Kalamazoo, MI
5. Indian Brown Ale, Dogfish Head, Rehobeth Beach, DE – A cross between a Scotch Ale, an India Pale Ale and an American Brown, Indian Brown Ale is well-hopped and malty at the same time (It’s magical!).
4. Star Stuff Belgian Dubbel, Harmony Brewing, Grand Rapids, MI
3. Allagash Curieux, Allagash Brewing, a bourbon barrel-aged tripel, Portland, Maine
2. Firestarter Chipotle Porter, Right Brain Brewery, Traverse City, MI

and…

Black Butte Imperial Porter
Black Butte Imperial Porter

1. Black Butte XXIV Imperial Porter, Deschutes, Bend, OR – the 24th anniversary brew of this imperial porter, featuring artisanal dark chocolate nibs, daglet dates, mission figs.  The best brew I had all year, thanks to friends at Wipf & Stock for the treat!

—

Top Ten Posts

    1. A New Convergence
      old_church_doorA few writers, thinkers, pastors, and theologians note that a new convergence is happening within Christianity.  While more conservative churches may well become even more strict with the changes afoot in the culture and in the church, others are expanding outward…
    2. Losing Our Religion
      john-sukRecently a pastor in my denomination announced that he is leaving the denomination because he ‘has doubts’ about the doctrinal positions that he is supposed to defend and teach.Is this really the place we want to be in?Are not these the very kind of leaders we need?  Yet the only space we seem willing to make for them is the doorway.
    3. Why Conservative Churches Attract Young People… or Not SongA fellow pastor recently wrote a recent column entitled, Why Conservative Churches Attract Young People.  “In particular, churches that have a self-consciously high view of Scripture, a commitment to the creeds and confessions, traditional stances on marriage and sexuality, and work to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ actually do draw young adults.”I have no doubt that this is the case.  He goes on to note some of the reasons, some of which I agree with, and some of which I might view from a slightly different angle.
    4. What’s the Big Idea?
      big_ideaQuite a bit recently people have been ready to write the eulogy on the church, and particularly on organized religion.  Christianity is in crisis they say.  My own tradition is not exempt, it seems.  A fellow pastor recently noted in a blog post that:  “the Christian Reformed Church is in desperate need of a big idea.”… But  I have a hard-time seeing his proposal as a viable solution, or even a big idea.  To me, it comes across as more of the same.  Better grab the shovels.
    5. Toes, Lines and Bad Religion
      ourworldThere is a little controversy brewing over a recent suggestion…  There has been an ongoing dialogue in the CRC as to the role the historic Reformed confessions should play in our life together as a denomination.They were written in the 1600’s and 1700’s – should adherence to them be mandatory?  Historically, all pastors and office bearers (and professors at Calvin College and Dordt College) have signed that they will teach and uphold these (by signing the Form of Subscription).  Yet times have changed.
    6. Linger here and reflect
      sandy-hook-elementary-school-shootingYesterday was a day for grieving.  So is today, and the day after that.But is it not appropriate to begin to wonder: what has to change?  How can we avoid situations like this?I get that people got angry at me.  I get that we’re all a bit angry.  But seriously, is it really worth getting angry at those who wonder: “What if this guy didn’t have guns?”
    7. This new convergence doesn’t resemble biblical Christianity
      Old_Bibles-1“Bryan, these observations are likely true about a new emerging spirituality. But this new convergence doesn’t resemble biblical Christianity. And that is awful sad. Feel free to get rid of the bathwater, but babies are cute and important. Here are a few questions with comments sprinkled in for good measure.”
    8. Pub Theology Book Endorsements
      PT at PT“Some of the best theological conversations happen over a beer at the pub. Bryan Berghoef captures something of the relaxed and relational dynamic that makes these discussions so pleasurable, while at the same time wrestling with serious theological questions. So pull up a chair, order your favorite drink, and settle in with this delightful and stimulating book. Invite a friend as well—the conversation’s just getting started.”
    9. Take This Job and—Paying the bills.
      The argument for bi-vocationalism, as I gather, is that having the pastor have a ‘regular job’ in addition to pastor duties makes him or her ‘more regular,’ it breaks down walls of superiority, it gives natural inroads for relationships in the community, it shows you’re as committed to the community as everyone else, it breaks down the clergy-laity walls, and so on.  Those reasons are very compelling to me as I consider this option.
    10. Good? Heavens!

      I came across a blog post yesterday with the title:
      You Cannot Be A Good Person If You Do Not Believe In Heaven
      I am in plenty of conversations with people who do not believe in heaven, or believe in something other than the Christian version of heaven, and they seem like pretty good people.

Top two guest posts of 2012:

    1. Christianity, gun violence & the nihilism of Mike Huckabee  – by Phil Snider
      Mike Huckabee, Elzabeth SaundersWhen Mike Huckabee infamously said that Friday’s murders in Newtown, Connecticut took place because we’ve “systematically removed God” from our public schools, he provided yet another stark reminder of the way that Christianity frequently functions as nothing more than a nihilistic enterprise that keeps us from addressing the most serious concerns that face us as a nation.
    2. ‘Spiritual but not religious’: A Response – by Rob Kroese
      Mind open, mind closed.Recently I ran across a blog post with the title My Take: “I’m spiritual but not religious” is a cop-out. I read the post with interest because I’ve often thought this very thing: that claiming to be “spiritual” isn’t an answer to a question about one’s religious beliefs, but rather a way to avoid the question while sounding like one has put some thought into it. Sadly, the post almost immediately devolves into unverifiable, baseless generalizations.

—

And the winner of our end-of-year giveaway of a signed copy of Pub Theology is [drumroll please]….:

Drew Meyer

Congrats, Drew!

Thanks for reading everyone!  Cheers to a good year ahead!

A Naive Approach to Interfaith Dialogue

Beer, Book review, Books, Pub Theology Comments are closed
You really believe that? So naive.
You really believe that? So naive.

My book, Pub Theology, has been out for about six months now.  I have heard from readers all over, nearly all of whom have really enjoyed the book.  The reviews on Amazon are all positive.  The Goodreads ratings are great.  This is a bit surprising to me, as I expected a certain amount of push back from readers.  Perhaps they have been biding their time.  A disappointed reader recently responded to the feature review of Pub Theology posted at the Englewood Review of Books.

Check out this response from Alex:

I am nearly finished with Berghoef’s work, which I had high hopes for. I appreciate points of your review, but I have to say that I do disagree about some of Berghoef’s intentions. If it were merely a monograph to discuss active listening in interfaith settings, I would be all ears. But within that framework he exposes that he is not a Christian living in a pluralistic world, he is a pluralist. I don’t say this with disrespect but in recognition that he is seeking to shed the “exclusitivity” of fundamentalism and traditional Christianity while learning what it means to “climb to the top of the mountain” of understanding and knowing God, asserting that multiple faiths can be incorporated into Christianity without any taking priority. (See his illustration of the telescope for an example). In establishing pub theology, he is also seeking to deconstruct Christian theology into a more cultural friendly model. I admittedly am frustrated with what you call his “whimsical” approaches to these gatherings. I too believe that there needs to be real listening and understanding, but I would not go so far as to say that this negates some central tenets to my own faith. I think that I can still be an “orthodox” Christian while also dialoguing with other faiths. From Berghoef’s Reformed background, he seems to posit the rigidness and fear of that upbringing as something that all people universally experience with tradtional (sic) Christianity. I would say that his context is dictating his views of others’ experience with the church in a way that molds his book. Maybe I am not progressive enough, but I don’t see religious pluralism as the necessary next step for Christianity, remembering that Jesus calls Himself the “way, truth, and the life.” The trouble I have with this multi-faith approach to God is that many of the faiths mentioned, at least in their primary Scriptures, see themselves as the sole route to God. To omit this is to in some way neglect what is a central part of the different faiths represented, and it’s a naive approach to interfaith dialogue.

These are just some of my relatively disjointed thoughts, but I’ve been wrestling with this book and needed to get them out.

Alright.  There we go.  That wasn’t so hard, was it?  If you’ve read the book, I’d be interested in your thoughts about the above.  If you haven’t read the book… what are you waiting for?  (Spend $10 of your Christmas cash and start reading now on your Kindle).

I actually really appreciate where Alex is coming from.  I’ve encountered others who have had the same frustration.  I expected more people would have this same concern, and probably they do, but for whatever reason haven’t voiced it.  But that very frustration highlights to me why the book (and the gatherings) are needed!  Too often Christians can only contemplate a space in which they are allowed to have the final say, they are allowed to ‘be right,’ and the forum which purports to be an open dialogue really masks for the latest in a clever church outreach attempt.  People should be treated like adults.  We shouldn’t need to try to con anyone, by attempting to ‘be relevant’ and hang out at the pub, while secretly just waiting to do our evangelistic duty, all the while despising pubs and beer and anyone who wonders if God actually exists.  We shouldn’t say we’re having a conversation where all are welcome at the table and there’s no requirement for any particular faith, and then turn around and make it into a Bible study or recruitment session for a particular church.  A true open space will be divested of hidden motives to convert.  A true open space will allow for anyone present to have the floor, and even, the final say.  If we really trust in the Holy Spirit’s ability to work, we should never have to resort to manipulative tactics.

Further, a true open space will also require its attendants to be honest.  And, yes, this will lead to disagreements.  There will be times where I, as a Christian, flat out disagree with a Muslim, or an atheist, or a Buddhist, about some central issues!  I find God most fully revealed in the person of Jesus.  I don’t expect a Muslim or Jew to agree about this.  And the book notes that disagreements will occur – and even highlights this with some actual pub theology dialogue.  (I actually think much of Alex’s concerns are addressed in the book, but then I often don’t land where he wants me to, hence the frustration).

Here is how I responded to him:

Hi Alex-

Glad to hear you are reading the book, and I share your high hopes for it. 🙂 I entirely appreciate your comments and your frustrations, and am glad you posted them. Also, before I forget, I’ve spent significant time in evangelical settings, so I think I have a fair grasp of (and to an extent have been shaped by) this perspective as well.

pub theology picThe book is meant to draw us into a setting of conversations where we actually do encounter others. Part of that requires at least sitting down to the table as a “pluralist,” in the minimal sense of: I believe all people are created in God’s image and have something to teach me. This does not necessarily mean everyone is right, or all paths lead to God, or anything of the sort. At that point you’re reading into what I’m saying (or not saying). I’m pretty sure I don’t make any claims in the book as to people’s eternal destinies. (Though I do hope and trust that God’s grace and mercy are much wider than I can imagine).

When discussions happen with people of various (and often competing) worldviews, there are going to be disagreements. Yes. Absolutely. Perhaps I could have articulated this more strongly in the book (though I think it is evident in some of the pub anecdotes and elsewhere). There have often been evenings at the pub where I have, as a Christian, flat out disagreed with people over important issues. An honest discussion demands this.

However, the point of the book is not to give an exposition of my own theology (though it arises at points), but rather to encourage the setting in which true and good dialogue can happen, and indicate ways in which one’s own faith or perspective (regardless of which kind), can be broadened.

I intentionally don’t show all of my cards, or even give the hoped for “But you’re going to tell everyone Jesus is the only way to God, right?”, because I want people to live in the tension. The tension of true interfaith connection, in which we hold the possibility (even if we don’t embrace it), that “the other” may well be right, and we are the ones who need to learn. As I note in the introduction, for too long the church has taken the place of preacher and teacher, and perhaps it is our turn to listen. Your comments indicate the discomfort that arises with such tension. You want to enter such discussions, not really to learn, but with the safe knowledge that you are right, and anticipating the moment you can share that. (Ironically, we Christians often come to such discussions hoping others will be open to our perspectives, while having no intention of being open to theirs).

You may not be in a place where you have something to learn from others, which perhaps might indicate your frustration with the book, and that’s fine. But many, many others have found the book to be a welcome volume which allows their own doubts, questions, and answers to be honestly wrestled with.

The book is not a defense of the Christian faith, or any other faith, though I write it as a Christian. It is simply one person’s experience of engaging others, and realizing that our world will be a better place if we can all sit down together and talk, instead of dismissing each other from our own safe enclaves.

I have no grand project of converting others at Pub Theology, except to this: to be a better person — one who loves more fully, questions more broadly, listens more intently, and hopes more strongly. I trust that at the end of the day, God’s purposes will happen, and the truth will win out.

As Augustine put it: “The truth is like a lion. You don’t have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself.”

God doesn’t need me to sit at the pub and tell everyone they’re wrong if they don’t believe a particular (often, narrow) version of Christianity. He needs me to create a space of hospitality, where all are received and welcome, and where his very way is incarnated and on display. Where saints and sinners are equals. And occasionally [in fact, often!], yes, I tell people about Jesus.

—
What do you think?  Is Pub Theology a ‘naive approach to interfaith dialogue’?  Or is it a needed shift toward creating true spaces of connection in our communities?

“Holy Innocents” and the Birth of Jesus

The Text, Theology Comments are closed

A guest post by Kyle Roberts.   This piece originally appeared on the Cultivare blog on Patheos.

—

Jesus was born into a world of violence. A world where demented people kill innocent children.

It’s right there in the infancy narrative of the first gospel (in the order in your Bibles). It’s easy to miss, because we don’t often focus on it in our telling of the Christmas story–understandably so.

Matthew 2:16-18 tells the story of the “massacre of the innocents.” When Herod learns that a presumed threat to his throne was born in Bethlehem, he orders all male infants under age 2 in Bethlehem and surrounding area to be killed. An angel warns Joseph, who subsequently removes the baby Jesus from danger.

Tony Jones and James McGrath recently had an interesting back and forth as to the historicity of this account, and what that means for how we might understand suffering and God’s will. McGrath pointed out that the only evidence of this particular tragic event occurring is Matthew’s account itself (nothing in the other gospels–canonical or non–or in early histories like Josephus’). There is significant debate as to whether the account tells about a historical event or whether Matthew created or borrowed a fictional story. In any case, the story connected Jesus’s story with Moses’ (remember Miriam’s basket?) and underscored the significance of Jesus of Nazareth and his Messianic identity. McGrath takes the account as mythological–and is relieved by that. If it actually happened, it would suggest that God only cares about his own family (he sent an angel to warn Joseph, but not those other families — Weren’t there enough angels to go around?)

Tony Jones, on the other hand, insists that the story is historical and suggests that to consider otherwise is to silence the cries of the victims.

Guido Reni, 1611
Guido Reni, 1611

It’s easy to sense the heart behind both positions. On McGrath’s side is a concern that we not see divine providence behind every tragedy. Surely God’s will is not that little, innocent children die. Can we really believe that God takes sides? And even if we were to interpret Scripture this way,  we dare not apply that logic to contemporary, tragic events.

On the other hand, I get where Jones is coming from. While we can’t prove the event is historical, we certainly can’t be certain that it didn’t happen. So why risk silencing the voices of the victims and burying their faces under the genre of mythology?

For my part, I accept the story’s basic historicity (it’s certainly not out of character for Herod to do such a thing–indeed, he slaughtered his own sons, if we believe Josephus). But the really important element, for our purposes, is the theological message.

There’s an important lesson Matthew is telling through this story.

In his contribution to the Global Bible Commentary, Alejandro Duarte reads the gospel of Matthew through the lens of the second chapter, and the massacre of the innocents in particular. He suggests that Matthew is contrasting the kingship of Jesus with the kingship of Herod. Duarte recognizes the disjunction, the “divine injustice” that “Jesus was saved while the other children in Bethlehem were not…” This seems in contrast with the purpose of the mission of Jesus, which is to “save his people from their sins.” Salvation, Duarte insists, includes the “harm that awaits them in their daily lives.”

Massacre of the Innocents
Massacre of the Innocents

The disjunction, the tension is certainly there in the text (why was the Savior’s birth seemingly interlaced with the death of other children?). Why isn’t Matthew as troubled as we are by the implication that God somehow orchestrated this tragic scenario? Why didn’t God simply strike Herod dead–or keep the news from him? Why not save the others? Duarte suggests that the tension is due to the greater point Matthew is making: we have on display, here two kinds of royalty, two kinds of king.

Herod is a fearful and ferocious king–fearful of losing his power and ferocious toward his enemies. He makes use of his strength to wield his weapon of war and to vanquish those who threaten him. Herod’s power is the power of empire, the power of brute strength. Herod is a bully king. And Jesus? Jesus is the opposite: a baby, born to a poor illegitimate family, “dependent and passive.” While he is recognized as a unique figure, he is “weak and vulnerable,” dependent on God. The power of Jesus is exemplified by his birth as a vulnerable baby in a dingy manger. The tension from the beginning of Jesus’ incarnate life–as the birth of the Messiah occurs in the midst of the death of innocent, little ones–follows all the way through to Jesus’ act of sacrifice on the cross, in which he shows his solidarity with the powerless and ends the power of the powerful. Evil and suffering meet their end at the cross (even if the end-game must still be played out).

Christ came into a world where innocent children died. Christ “comes” again and again in a world–this we proclaim this during advent season) of intense suffering, a world where innocent children, “Holy Innocents” still die, whether by gunfire, errant drone strikes, starvation, thirst or disease.

Jesus shows us that the death of innocent children is not God’s will–and he prayed that God’s will would be done on earth as it is in heaven. The ultimate disjunction we live with is that God’s will is too often not done on earth as it is in heaven. God does not force his way. God creates space for freedom–even for evil and tragic suffering. And he urges obedience to the call of justice. While we pray that prayer, and hope in the advent of Jesus, we must also rise up and do whatever lies in our power to right wrongs and protect the innocent. But we must follow the model of Jesus the baby and the crucified one. He was a different sort of King than Herod. And we must not lose hope that the  birth of Jesus means the eventual death of the kind of power that too often rules our world.

Relevant no matter your belief system, great read all around

Beer, Book review, Books, Church, Pub Theology Comments are closed
With a Perseus Porter at Elysian's Capitol Hill Pub on Pike Street in Seattle
With a Perseus Porter at Elysian’s Capitol Hill Pub on Pike Street in Seattle

Latest reader review of Pub Theology posted on Amazon.com:


Let me preface this review with the fact that I am by no means a Christian, nor a non-believer. A skeptic at heart, I came into the book and the concept of Pub Theology warily. I had never heard of Pub Theology or even met Bryan, but the book found me by chance.

That being said, it was a delightful read. He’s wise beyond his years and brings us a message of love, understanding, and openness. Do not let the word ‘theology’ turn you off – it’s relevant life-enriching information no matter your belief system. Whether you come into this as a veteran on the subject or as a fresh mind, you’ll find value. Worst-case scenario it’s a fun read on an interesting subject and a wonderful refresher. Best-case, you’re going to start seeing things differently and come away with some very useful information.

I was invited to and attended a Pub Theology event while in midst of the book. If you have the opportunity to visit one, do not miss the chance.

Perhaps we’ve barely tried it

Church, Culture, Politics Comments are closed
A few thoughts from brother Anthony Smith:

“I thought I’d give Mike a listen. I just have one question for when he says that the carnage Newtown experienced this past Friday is due to the systematic removal of Christianity in schools and in the broader society ‘beginning 50 years ago.’  I was struck inwardly by this question: America has always been a violent society; from the near extermination of Native Americans; slavery of blacks; tyranny over woman; and our strong propensity to be exclusionary and violent toward people who do not look like us or live exactly like us.

OK… the question:

“Given your logic Mike is fair to say that given the history of carnage in America and exported by America that America has not really removed Christianity as it has barely tried it?”

Christianity has not been systematically removed, brother Mike. It’s just that we have barely lived it for nearly 300 years, not just the past 50.

_____

And a few later thoughts by Anthony:

“This story is too tragic to become a political handmaiden to a version of Christianity that is nearly almost completely self-deceived [and] amnesiatic about it’s career in the Americas. We need a better story than this. Those small children deserve a better story than this. God have mercy on us.”

Linger here and reflect

Culture, Politics, Practices Comments are closed
sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting
Tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012

Heaven on Earth
We need it now
I’m sick of all of this
Hanging around

Sick of sorrow
I’m sick of the pain
I’m sick of hearing
Again and again
That there’s gonna be
Peace on Earth
–U2, Peace on Earth

Some have accused me of insensitivity due to my FB posting yesterday in which I highlighted what had occurred the day before in my home state of Michigan:

“LANSING — Changes to the concealed weapons law passed the state House and Senate late Thursday, allowing gun owners to carry their weapons in formerly forbidden places, such as schools, day care centers, stadiums and churches.”

Some said it was too soon to talk about these kinds of issues.

Some said I was out of bounds for “making this political.”

Some accused me of being insensitive or narrowing this down to one issue. (because a single FB post clearly defines everything I think about a subject)

First of all, let me say that as a parent of four children, all of whom are the right age to attend Sandy Hook, and who just spent their first week in an urban public school, I was devastated to hear of this incident, and I am absolutely sick about it.  I have no idea how I am going to drop off my four little precious ones on Monday, and say, “See you soon.”  I am sure all parents feel the same way.

Yesterday was a day for grieving.  So is today, and the day after that. 

But is it not appropriate to begin to wonder: what has to change?  How can we avoid situations like this?

I get that people got angry at me.  I get that we’re all a bit angry.  But seriously, is it really worth getting angry at those who wonder: “What if this guy didn’t have guns?”

Arm Yourselves

Some are sure the answer is not less guns, but more.

We need more people trained to use guns in our schools.  Like teachers and school administrators.  More guns in our schools.

We ourselves should arm ourselves, because who knows, someone could break into our homes and threaten our own families.  More guns in our homes.

The question is: What kind of society do we want to have?  What kind of people do we want to be?

The argument that we need more guns, and more people trained to use them boils down to: then we can kill, before we get killed.

They may, in fact, be right. This strategy may well have some level of effectiveness. It may even be the most effective strategy.

Again I ask: What kind of society do we want to have?  What kind of people do we want to be?

Perhaps we need to admit that we live in a sick society, and just increase weapon proliferation to deal with the issue.  “It’s effective.”  “I’ll feel safer.”

But do we really want a society in which there are more of these weapons that can be unleashed across a schoolroom full of unsuspecting children?

And for me the more poignant question is: do I really want to become someone who has to be trained to kill someone else, as the answer to reducing violence?

What happened to making this a broader issue than just guns?  (Those who are angry at mention of gun control but turn around and say we need more guns are also talking about: gun control.  Just less of it.)

To me, this stems from a lack of imagination, and a lack of hope.

Let’s Talk About Training

I’d rather be trained in being a good parent.

I’d rather be trained in connecting with my neighbors.

I’d rather be trained in getting involved in my neighborhood school, getting to know the kids, the families, the moms, the dads, the challenges, etc.

I’d rather have others who are trained in mental health issues and counseling accessible to those who need their services and expertise.

I’d rather train my kids to deal with emotional and social issues in a healthy manner.

I’d rather train my kids to be discerning consumers of media.

I’d rather be a person who is trained to love, than one who is trained to kill (even in self-defense).

(And this is just me, I get that we do need some folks like that, but I bristle at the suggestion that we all become like that.)

A Question of Efficiency?

Call me naïve on this.  Call me ignorant or even Amish when it comes to guns.  Not a big fan.

They kill people.  Ah, but you say, guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

Well that’s fine and good.

But as James Fallows noted yesterday in The Atlantic:

“Guns don’t attack children; psychopaths and sadists do. But guns uniquely allow a psychopath to wreak death and devastation on such a large scale so quickly and easily. America is the only country in which this happens again — and again and again. You can look it up.”

And also, as I’m sure you’ve heard, there was an outbreak of violence at a school in China yesterday as well, and because there was a knife, instead of a gun, all of those children are alive today.   Though, it has been pointed out to me that knives can kill people too.  But does anyone seriously want to compare assault rifles to utensils?

Guns make it way too easy.  Pulling a trigger can happen with a momentary brain lapse.  Killing someone with a knife or spoon takes some serious want-to, and generally hurts one person at a time, not an entire classroom.

But you say, more trained gun carriers will indeed make us safer.  It’s the most efficient way forward.

Again, perhaps.

Or perhaps not.

Consider this article, which came out in September:

In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 61 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.

America has long been heavily armed relative to other societies, and our arsenal keeps growing.

There is no evidence indicating that arming Americans further will help prevent mass shootings or reduce the carnage, says Dr. Stephen Hargarten, a leading expert on emergency medicine and gun violence at the Medical College of Wisconsin. To the contrary, there appears to be a relationship between the proliferation of firearms and a rise in mass shootings.

And armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, says Hargarten, “given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances.”

For the sake of argument, let’s say that more trained gunowners is the most efficient solution to avoiding disasters like occurred yesterday. Are we ceding that violence is the answer?  Is efficiency our highest goal?  And is becoming potential killers ourselves really the place we want to be?

“We need to become those trained to kill so that others don’t kill us.”

Kill or be killed, isn’t that what Jesus said?

Or was it: “those who live by the sword, die by the sword.”  I also seem to recall an ancient prophetic dream that one day swords would be beaten into plowshares, and war and fighting would be no more.

Ah… but you say, “That is way in the future.”

For now, you say, let’s eschew the Psalmist’s call to trust in the Lord rather than in horses and armies (or firearms and munitions), and arm ourselves for the sake of the children.

After all, Jesus was a bit naïve about the whole “sword thing” and the whole “turning the other cheek” idea.  Look where it got him.

As followers of his, surely we are much wiser.

Carry the weapons, shoot first, and trust in God later.

“If someone broke into your home and threatened your children, wouldn’t you rather be able to shoot and kill them?”

What kind of society do we want to have?  What kind of people do we want to be?

Linger here and reflect

I live in Washington DC.  I don’t own a gun.  Call me Amish, a wishful-thinker, or naïve…  Or maybe just a bad parent.  Speaking of which, we went for a walk with the kids last night in an area garden decorated with Christmas lights, and came across a memorial to those who died at the hands of the DC-area sniper back in 2002.

And we saw this stone:

linger_here

“Linger here and reflect on those lost to violence.
Hope for a more peaceful world.
Seek a reverence for life among all people.”

Amen.

There are no easy answers.  This is not a one-issue situation.  We all have some long and hard thinking to do about it.

But should that stop us from dreaming?

What if we tried to enact the prophetic dream now, and gave up our obsession with violence?  What if we didn’t wait for someone else to beat the pistols into plowshares, but set the example ourselves?

What’s the worst that could happen?

Ask Jesus.

A New Convergence

Church, Culture, Relationships, Theology Comments are closed

old_church_door

A few writers, thinkers, pastors, and theologians (Brian McLaren and Eric Elnes, among others) note that a new convergence is happening within Christianity.  McLaren notes:

“A new coalition is already happening, as existing organizations and emerging networks discover one another and realize they have independently reached common conclusions.”

Hence, convergence.

While more conservative churches may well become even more strict with the changes afoot in the culture and in the church, McLaren notes that others are expanding outward, and this convergence will be comprised of people from four general streams:

That new coalition, I believe, will emerge from four main sources:

  1. Progressive Evangelicals who are squeezed out of constricting evangelical settings.
  2. Progressive Roman Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) who are squeezed out of their constricting settings.
  3. Missional mainliners who are rediscovering their Christian faith more as a missional spiritual movement, and less as a revered and favored religious institution.
  4. Social justice-oriented Pentecostals and Evangelicals— from the minority churches in the West and from the majority churches of the global South, especially the second- and third-generation leaders who have the benefits of higher education.

Where and how will this coalition happen? It’s already happening through a variety of sources, as existing organizations and emerging networks discover one another, realize they have independently reached common conclusions, and begin developing both personal relationships and concrete plans for missional collaboration — especially on behalf of the poor, peace, and the planet.

But what other things mark those who might fit in with this shift?

Eric Elnes writes of twelve defining characteristics, which are evenly divided into three categories: Love of God, Love of Neighbor, and Love of Self.

Love of God

  1. They are letting go of the notion that their particular faith is the only legitimate one on the planet. They are embracing an understanding that God is greater than our imagination can comprehend (or fence in), and thus they are open to the possibility that God may speak within and across all faith traditions.
  2. They are letting go of literal and inerrant interpretations of their sacred texts while celebrating the unique treasures that their texts contain. They are embracing a more ancient, prayerful, non-literal approach to these same texts, and finding new insights and resources as they do so.
  3. They are letting go of the notion that people of faith are called to dominate nature. They are embracing a more organic and reverent understanding of human relationship with the earth.
  4. They are letting go of empty worship conventions and an overemphasis on doctrines as tools of division and exclusion. They are embracing more diverse, creative, engaging approaches, often making strong use of the arts.

Love of Neighbor

  1. They are letting go of a narrow definition of sexual orientation and gender identity. They are embracing with increasing confidence an understanding that affirms the dignity and worth of all people.
  2.  They are letting go of an understanding that people of faith should only interest themselves in the “spiritual” well-being of people. They are embracing a more holistic understanding that physical and spiritual well-being are related.
  3. They are letting go of the desire to impose their particular vision of faith on wider society. They are embracing the notion that their purpose is to make themselves more faithful adherents of their vision of faith.
  4. They are letting go of the old rivalries between “liberal, moderate, and conservative” branches of their faith. They are embracing a faith that transcends these very definitions.

Love of Self

  1. They are letting go of notions of the afterlife that are dominated by judgment of “unbelievers.” They are embracing an understanding that, as God’s creations, God is eternally faithful to us, and that all people are loved far more than we can comprehend.
  2.  They are letting go of the notion that faith and science are incompatible. They are embracing the notion that faith and science can serve as allies in the pursuit of truth, and that God values our minds as well as our hearts.
  3. They are letting go of the notion that one’s work and one’s spiritual path are unrelated. They are embracing an understanding that rest and recreation, prayer and reflection, are as important as work, and that our work is a “calling” and expression of our “sweet spot.”
  4. They are letting go of old hierarchies that privilege religious leaders over laypeople. They are embracing an understanding that all people have a mission and purpose in life in response to the call of the Holy Spirit. It’s no longer about who wears the robes but who lives the life.

What do you think?  Do you resonate with any of these?  Do you see these shifts in your own life or faith community?  Do you find any of them particularly helpful or problematic?

There are indeed shifts happening within broader Christianity… whether one likes it or not.  I think the above represent some healthy movements, even if one doesn’t want to get on board with all of them.  And as noted, these sensibilities are present in multiple traditions, and many reflect ‘rediscoveries’ rather than genuinely new ideas or patterns.

An Invitation to Authentic Conversation and Community

Beer, Book review, Books, Pub Theology Comments are closed 
A Book Review of Pub Theology
 by Matthew Goode

While I was an undergrad Religious Studies major at a state university, I had some of the best interfaith conversations of my life… at the bar. Our regular group consisted of an atheist, a Wiccan, a Catholic, and a Methodist (me). There were others from the department who would join us at times. This group was informal, formed quite organically, and was the setting of some of the most rewarding theological and philosophical conversations I ever had. Then something happened. I went to seminary.  Although I continued having theological and philosophical conversations at the bar, they were mostly with other Christians. Now I am a pastor, and my conversations have become even more limited.

Not a whimsical proposal

Bryan Berghoef has both invited and challenged me to return to the bar and to the transformational conversations that happen when we gather with folks who are different from us. “Pub Theology” is an insightful yet approachable blend of personal narrative, community narrative, theology, and, oh yeah… beer.  Bryan’s honesty about his own journey and the risk of denominational disapproval should be an encouragement to all pastors who feel that they are hiding part of themselves in order to fit within the system. Bryan stepped out in faith, not to do something new and cool, but instead to authentically express the ways that God was calling him to be in community and conversation with others.

“Pub Theology” is not a how-to book for the next cool new fad in church outreach. “Pub Theology” is not necessarily even new or cool. Instead, “Pub Theology” is an authentic expression of the very old idea of coming together around the table in community with others. Deep conversations in pubs have existed as long as pubs have. When people are in a comfortable setting (with good beer) they feel free to let their guard down and be vulnerable with each other. That vulnerability opens up deep spaces where deep transformation can happen.

Make no mistake, Bryan has not written a whimsical proposal about how much fun it would be to talk about God over a beer. “Pub Theology” marries the experience of a community with deep theological thought. Bryan turns to minds like Jack Caputo and Peter Rollins (two of my inspirations), and presents their ideas in an approachable manner without watering them down. This book is a very pleasant read that has deep and complex flavors for the more discerning palate. Perhaps this is coincidence, or perhaps it is the author’s intention to have his book evoke the feeling of drinking a great beer.

I raise my glass to Bryan Berghoef and “Pub Theology” for inviting, challenging, and encouraging me to return the types of conversations that God is calling all of us to participate in.

—
» Pub Theology is available in paperback or for Kindle at Amazon.com.

Finally!

Beer, Book review, Books, Pub Theology Comments are closed

A Goodreads Review of Pub Theology

By Adriane Devries

Finally, Bryan Berghoef, evangelical Christian pastor and beer connoisseur, gives us in written form what so many of us secretly desire: permission to mix up our beer and religion, in public even!

“It makes perfect sense, really.”

In Pub Theology, he describes the formation of a club so unique as to be both hated and feared in his community, a club in which the only requirement is humble curiosity and the willingness to discuss things of God and faith. Invited are Islamists, Buddhists, atheists, Christians, and learners of all persuasions who would like to discuss key topics that form the basis of religion, in a setting that provides the consumption of good IPAs and Extra Special Darks.

It makes perfect sense, really. The availability of alcohol both precludes the arrival of Bible-toting ranters who need to dominate the conversation; and the presence of alcohol in the veins ensures conversation flows with less inhibition than such a subject generally engenders. Opponents of such an idea express outrage that a Christian pastor would not only meet in such a pagan setting, but also that he would not even subtly direct the conversation to a three-point sermon on salvation through the blood of Jesus at the end of each meeting.

Quite the contrary, he provides merely the questions to get conversation going, allowing all parties to share openly their opinions and experiences, and if a Bible-thumper starts filibustering, the conversation is politely re-directed to a new topic. Berghoef encourages an “exploration approach” to faith, which focuses on experiencing God graciously in life-affirming and socially beneficial community, rather than an “indoctrination approach,” which focuses on knowing right answers. Christians who feel the need to believe the right things will no doubt cringe when reading much of this book, but to them he would say, No Fear! The very strength of our faith, and yes, even the faiths of others who are different, is his ultimate goal. Such conversations strip down notions that we perhaps have never thought through, that perhaps are not truly necessary components of traditions that may be entirely human in origin, citing that “Ironically, it may well be that opening ourselves up to the traditions of others is the very thing that helps save our own.”

Perhaps, he contests, being right is not really very Christian at all: “In our efforts to refute other perspectives, to shout the loudest, to make sure people know that we are right, we may in fact be betraying the very God we are seeking to represent,” and the best way to show faith in Jesus is to “simply spend time with anyone, simply because they are a fellow human being, and that perhaps I am especially called to spend time with those who are often outcast by our communities of faith.”

A pub seems like one of the least intimidating places to meet folks of different backgrounds, who might ultimately benefit most from such conversations. Do you dare do it yourself?   Maybe a Pub Theology setting is just the challenge your faith has been needing.
—
» Pub Theology is available in paperback or for Kindle at Amazon.com.

Disarming and Ingenious

Beer, Books, Pub Theology, Relationships Comments are closed

Book Review: Pub Theology, a Provocative Brew!

Michael Camp’s review of Pub Theology

Disarming and ingenious; cleverly crafted with a residual sweetness

Bryan Berghoef is an author after my own heart. He loves beer… and Jesus. But not the Jesus we typically find in our traditional institutional church structures, where brutal honesty is squelched, members are spoon fed answers, and the goal is to produce clones who all believe one body of doctrine but don’t think for themselves. No, Bryan’s Christ is humble (open to listen to other perspectives, embraces religious diversity, and makes love, mutual respect, and communal exploration paramount) and his beer is good. It creates the scene for this story—the local pub—one of the best places where a faith (and no-faith) community can learn a whole new paradigm for Christ-like fellowship.

And that’s what you’ll do if you read Pub Theology. You’ll learn and experience the pub-theology way. Not only how Berghoef, a pastor of a church in Michigan, begins a regular meet up at a brewpub to discuss theology, philosophy, and the meaning of life, but how it attracts an eclectic variety of wayfarers—from conservatives to progressives to agnostics—who experience a challenging and encouraging environment to both deconstruct and discover their faith, or just learn from another—even, or especially, from an atheist, one of the long-time attendees. Which is why you’ll also discover a safe haven, where condescending religious authority is discouraged and the most doubting are welcomed with open arms, and some damn good microbrews.

In telling his story, Berghoef meets head on some of the most controversial faith issues of our day that sorely need addressing. Not only how to rethink church and outreach, but for instance, how to rethink the Bible, still taking it seriously, but being honest about its sometimes contradictory nature and how we need an understanding of its history and culture to discern its message for us today. Moreover, including exploring more inclusive themes for God, questioning faith that is motivated by a fear of hell or God’s punishment, and understanding the sporadic ways the early church developed cherished doctrines, such as the Trinity or the divinity of Christ. In the end, Berghoef deals with some of the objections people have about interfaith dialogue in a reasoned, respectful way that acknowledges the need for a safety net: the discussions don’t lead to leaving one’s faith but to knowing God’s heart for people.

Pub Theology is a fascinating open-minded spiritual journey that will stretch your faith or non-faith and show you an innovative, alternative model for human interaction on theology and the great questions of life. I highly recommend it. Enjoy Berghoef’s journey, but please note: it’s more appreciated when read with a glass of your favorite craft beer!

» Pub Theology is available in paperback or for Kindle at Amazon.com.

—
Michael Camp is an author, marketer, and microbrew enthusiast with a background in international development and missions, including living in Africa for 7 years. As an independent-minded believer in Christ his favorite theological concept is grace.  He is the author of the new book: Confessions of a Bible Thumper: My Home-Brewed Quest for a Reasoned Faith

Close