Interview: Gregory Walter "Being Promised"

I was presented with the opportunity to interview Professor Gregory Walter, author of the new book Being Promised: Theology, Gift, and Practice. It is a wonderful book, full of insight - I highly recommend it.

Gregory Walter is Associate Professor of Religion at St. Olaf College in Northfield, MN. Like many of my friends, we have never met in person, but I in our online friendship I have learned from his passion for his ministry (and the cultural passions he and I share).

Here is my interview:

1) Thank you for this book. It is fair to say that this is straight-forward academic theology. The question that I know I will be asked by my colleagues: Why does this book matter for a parish pastor?

Christians, especially pastors, think, talk about, try to be faithful and act out of God’s promise.   Promise promise promise.  The book tries to answer this question:  what is a promise?   This book provides a critical theological vocabulary for talking about and practicing promise.  The way I consider promise and its power or its critical potential can be useful for any community trying to discern how to act or what the relationship is between God’s graciousness and the immediate needs of those among and around the community. 

Similarly, we are all embedded in a wide circle of gifts, some of them welcome and needed, others that are dangerous and full of damage.  This economy of giving, the needs of the world, are all the demands, calls, and hopes that show up in our hearts and on our doorsteps.  Because I develop promise as a gift in this book, I provide a way to show how God’s promise is credible amidst this circulation of gifts but also how it is radical, reorienting, and liberative.  We need to be reminded, I think, of our creatureliness in terms of the web of relationships and gifts that those webs bear.  And promise as gift in Being Promised addresses that.

But I also think it matters because the gospel is a promise, at least as articulated throughout the Bible. Robert Jenson, the instructor of my first theology class, a class I took when I was a sophomore in college, started the first day to define theology as that activity that occurs and is entirely devoted to this weird thing we call a promise.  Since then I was hooked and deeply interested in answering the question:  what difference does it make if the Triune God is one who makes a promise?

I won’t pretend Being Promised doesn’t make demands of its readers.  It is, after all a book about promise and not a promise itself!  But because it spans the practical, the liturgical, the moral, and the theological, I think there is something in the book for most every reader who has an interest in gift or promise.

2)   It seems to me that promise is inherently risky. What does it look like to brave that risk?

Friedrich Nietzsche has a picture of the ultimate promisor.  This is a person who has such strength that he (probably) can resist any change, has power to preserve the present, to be true to his word.  This person is can forget the past in favor of the pledge made, can shake off any guilt and worry in order to keep the promise.

This is not a promise that is risky nor does it require bravery.

A true promise, as I argue, is weak.  It is an adventure.  Making a promise risky but so is trusting one.  This means a kind of waiting on what may come, that which comes-to, advent.  This life is a risk, an opening, and a willingness to see what happens. 

The bravery to accept this risk is a kind of courage to embrace the fragility of one’s self and each other.  Mary Oliver has a line:  “I tell you this to break your heart, by which I mean only that it break open and never close again to the rest of the world.”  I think that is the risk of promise, which is to dwell in this life of Spirit that the Crucified One pledges.

3) Help me flesh out the eschatology of promise some more. How do we encounter the fullness of God’s promise? 

All eschatology is local.

I argue at the end of the book that since God’s promise is always other-directed, since the place of promise is always the place of the other, that any statements we make about eschatology or fulfillment are always bound to the neighbor. 

In other words, I think that a kind of cosmic or total eschatology is a bit over-hasty.  We might be able to articulate that from God’s promise but I think what we have biblically-speaking is the apocalyptic seer’s poetry, parabolic statements in the Gospels, and various wisdom sayings throughout Paul.  When taken from the perspective of promise, we have just a schema, a bare-bones skeleton that has flesh only when it is addressed to the neighbor’s needs, concerns, and injuries.

Eschatological claims need to be filled out in relationship to the way that God’s promise in Jesus addresses those local concerns.  Thus, it is not just enough to be a theologian of the cross, you need to be a local theologian of the cross.  And that isn’t enough either because the theology of the cross needs this promise in order to get the openness and spirit-breathed impossibility interwoven into the local scene.

We encounter the full gift of God’s promise in the Spirit, as I argue at the end of the third chapter on Pentecost.   This we have in bread and wine.  If the promise of Christ is Christ’s body and blood and we have that in the pledge, in doubled gift, we have it in the bread and wine.  Heaven is a place on earth.  And this place is a double place, as the last chapter shows, a place of paten and cup and of the neighbor.

4) You have invested some serious time and energy on this book. Having finished it, and putting it out into the world, what will you tackle next? What is your next project?

I wrote a fair amount on promise that I didn’t include.  I have been fashioning that material into a monograph on the sacraments and Christian practice.    A colleague at St. Olaf and I have been teaching comparative theology for five years now and we intend to write a short Christian-Hindu commentary on some of the Upanisads.  But lastly, I’d really like to write on Tolkien to advocate what my students alternately call Pipeweed or Faerie Theology.  A Elbereth Gilthoniel!

Thank you, Gregory Walter, for your time! Check out the book, and read Gregory's comments on the other stops on his blog tour! 

• Gregory Walter booktour on Clint Schnekloth's blog
• Gregory Walter booktour on Geoff Sinibaldo's blog
• Gregory Walter booktour on Joe McGarry's blog

Galatians: Radically Free - Radically Bound Sermon 8

Sermon 8 of our summer sermon series, Galatians: Radically Free - Radically Bound.

Preached August 4, 2013 at St. John Lutheran Church of Prairie Hill. 11th Sunday after Pentecost, Proper 13C. Text: Galatians 5:14; 22-26.





Subscribe to Sermon Podcast via Itunes

Subscribe to Sermons in an RSS reader

Galatians: Radically Free - Radically Bound Sermon 7

Sermon 7 of our summer sermon series, Galatians: Radically Free - Radically Bound.

Preached July 28, 2013 at St. John Lutheran Church of Prairie Hill. 10th Sunday after Pentecost, Proper 12C. Text: Galatians 5:1-14.


Subscribe to Sermon Podcast via Itunes

Subscribe to Sermons in an RSS reader

Freedom: You keep using that word ... 

Galatians: Radically Free - Radically Bound Sermon 6

Sermon 5 of our summer sermon series, Galatians: Radically Free - Radically Bound.

Preached July 21, 2013 at St. John Lutheran Church of Prairie Hill. 9th Sunday after Pentecost, Proper 11C. Text: Galatians 4:1-7 and Luke 11:1-13

Subscribe to Sermon Podcast via Itunes

Subscribe to Sermons in an RSS reader

A little Monty Python prayer for you:

"Real" and "Virtual" Relationships

As someone who teaches about social media, I have heard the common refrains of worry and caution about living life online. Especially among people in ministry, there is one concern that surfaces again and again.

"You can't establish real relationships online."

Or, people will ask me, "How many people do you really know, and how many do you just know online?"

There is an assumption that online relationships are qualitatively different than in-the-flesh relationship - that relationships that are developed online are in some way deficient. We (people in ministry) are in the community-building business, so this is an important concern. 

So let me be clear: Whether online or in the flesh, relationships are relationships. Period. End of sentence. 

In our lives - in the flesh - we have acquaintances. People with whom we have countless superficial interactions, and no meaningful interaction. All of us have these casual relationships.  We all also we walk past countless people every day without really seeing them. They are there, right in front of us, in the flesh, and we barely acknowledge there existence. Not every in the flesh relationship is automatically a profoundly deep and abiding relationship. 

But the relationships that we invest in, the relationships that we spend time on and that we care about can become deep and abiding. If we care. If we put the time and the work in. 

And what is true in the flesh is also true online. It's true: many online relationships are superficial and have little affect on our lives. The same sort of casual relationship that we have in the flesh. But if we invest time and effort and care, we can develop real and meaningful relationships that include online  interaction.

My good friend and frequent collaborator Meredith Gould (whom I have never met in person) often says that who we are in "real life" is who we are online. If we have superficial relationships in which we don't invest time and attention in the flesh, we will have superficial relationships online. If we care to invest in deep and lasting friendships and community, we will find them both in the flesh and online.

Last week, an adolescent in my community was severely injured. We offered prayers in our community, and ministry in our community. I also posted about it on Facebook, inviting prayers for her healing and recovery. Messages of prayer and support and love flooded in from all over the world. From Lutherans and Catholics and Baptists and Pagans and Agnostics. And they have continued.

And not just messages typed on keyboards. Phone calls. Text messages. Real prayers, offered up by real caring and loving people. A congregation in Florida (none of whom know me in "real life") who spent the entire Sunday School hour crafting handmade cards to let this young girl know that she is not alone and she is loved. All thanks to social media. 

This is community. Real community. 

Whether online or in the flesh, relationships are relationships. Period. End of sentence.

(PS - You should all go tell the intergenerational Sunday School of Trinity Lutheran Church, Pembroke Pines how awesome they are)

Galatians: Radically Free - Radically Bound Sermon 5

Sermon 5 of our summer sermon series, Galatians: Radically Free - Radically Bound.

Preached July 14, 2013 at St. John Lutheran Church of Prairie Hill. 8th Sunday after Pentecost, Proper 10C. Text: Galatians 3:23-29.




Subscribe to Sermon Podcast via Itunes

Subscribe to Sermons in an RSS reader

Galatians: Radically Free - Radically Bound Sermon 4

Sermon 4 of our summer sermon series, Galatians: Radically Free - Radically Bound.

Preached June 23, 2013 at St. John Lutheran Church of Prairie Hill. 5th Sunday after Pentecost, Proper 7C. Text: Galatians 3:1-9, 11.


Subscribe to Sermon Podcast via Itunes

Subscribe to Sermons in an RSS reader

Charles Blondin,
carrying his manager across
the Niagara River 

Broken Families?

I generally have an easy-going personality. I really do. It takes a lot to get me worked up – I usually have no problem letting comments slide right off my back.

But every time someone expresses surprise that my daughter is “doing so well … considering everything” I get this little urge to punch them in the face. The same goes double for the people who use the phrase “Broken family” to describe our family. Those people mean well – I know that they do. But comments like that make some pretty big – and quite negative – assumptions about my family.

Broken things need to be fixed. They are not the way they are intended to be. If something is broken, there is something inherently wrong. The same goes for the (very well intentioned) concern about how our daughter is “dealing with everything.”

Here is the bottom line: We are precisely the family that God has called us to be – and our daughter’s life is better for it. It is your idea of family is that is broken.

A couple of months ago, I showed up at my daughter’s school for a class party. There were not many parents there, so the kids gathered around me. My daughter was explaining her family to her friends, “This is my Dad. I have another Dad, too. And I have two Moms.” To which her friends properly responded: “You have two Dads? No fair!”

Children get it. Children are jealous of the child who is privileged to have two dads and two moms -- two bedrooms and FOUR sets of grandparents to spoil her. It is adults who have hang-ups, not the kids.

Not every divorce works out well. Many don’t – and that pain is very real and important. But I don’t think we can any longer assume that divorced parents are not parenting well together – working together for the well-being of the child. For many families – mine included – it can be the best solution.

And for the children in those situations it can be a real blessing. Four parents to surround you with love. Four parents to guide you and care for you. Just because there has been a divorce in our family does not mean that our family is broken.

How many children grow up in a home that is loveless and cold, because Mom & Dad are staying together “for the good of the kids”? How many children grow up feeling neglected and ignored by one of their parents? Regardless of marital status, those homes are broken.

What it means to be a family is changing in so many ways. So the next time you have a conversation with a divorced parent, stop and listen. Don’t jump to conclusions about how they relate to their co-parent and what it means for their child. Just listen.

Our family is not broken. In the last 3 years, our family has grown larger. In the last 3 years, it has grown to be more loving, and more caring. And I think that is not a cause for concern – it is a cause for rejoicing.

Can we – the church – rejoice with those who rejoice? 
Can we set aside our judgments, and celebrate love-filled families that look different than we expect?

"Never Alone" Trinity Sunday 2013

"Never Alone." Sermon preached at St. John Lutheran Church of Prairie Hill (Brenham, TX) on May 26, 2013 - Trinity Sunday. Text: Genesis 1:26-28.



Subscribe to Sermon Podcast via Itunes

Subscribe to Sermons in an RSS reader

Can You Hear Me Now?

The constitution of the congregations of the denomination in which I serve (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) include a chapter which lists the duties of the pastor. In most congregations, those duties include this charge:

The pastor shall speak publicly to the world in solidarity with the poor and oppressed, calling for justice and proclaiming God’s love for the world.

Public witness. That is an important piece of what the church is called to be (A city on a hill, the salt of the earth), and also what we who work for the church are called to do. And yet, far too often, our witness has consisted of "Come join us for worship!"

One reason that I advocate for clergy and other church leaders to get involved in social media is that it gives us a voice in the public square in a way that we have never had before. The Rev. Evan Dolive is a great example of this. Perhaps you have heard of Victoria's Secret's new line, aiming at ever younger girls? Chances are, you heard of it because of Pastor Dolive, a Disciples of Christ pastor in the Houston. He wrote an open letter to Victoria's Secret and published it on his blog, and to date it has been viewed 3.7 million times.

I've had the opportunity to ask Evan a few questions about his experience.

David Hansen: How long have you been blogging? Why did you start?
Evan Dolive: I have been blogging for a little over a year now. I started when I began writing for a local paper. I wanted a place to host all of my writings. After a few posts, I began to write pieces just for the blog. My goal was twice a week and some weeks I did that and some weeks I didn’t. I wanted my blog to be a place where Christianity was seen as multifaceted and rich not bland and boring. When I was in seminary at Lexington Theological Seminary we were taught that we were not being trained just as ministers, but rather ‘public theologians.’ I use this mind set when I approach a topic or situation that I am blogging about.


DH: Prior to this post, who was the primary audience of your blog? 
ED: My primary audience were Christians, non-Christians and those disenfranchised with the modern church. I wanted to provide a place where the public life seen in a different lens and Christianity was not viewed as a literalist, legalistic religion. I wanted people to know that a life lived for Christ didn’t have to look like the 700 Club. :-) The primary readership were my Facebook friends and Twitter followers.


DH: What was your traffic like before?
ED: Not all that great... a deemed a success a post that received more than 50 hits :-). The best post I had before this one was a reflection on the “Chick-fil-a Day back in August 2012- it received 2500 hits in two days.

DH: At what point did you know that this was going viral?
ED: I would say when I hit 60,000 page views in a day and then the next day I had 60,000 page views before 8 am.

DH: Tell me about traditional media reaction.
ED: I have been interviewed by four local Houston stations- CBS, Fox, NBC, CW. I have been interviewed by two national news organizations- CNN and HLN (Headline News).
I know of about 20 print articles that talk about my post -- I would say that is a low ball number.

DH: What advice would you offer to pastors about social media?
ED: Don’t think it is waste of time. Social media is the ONLY reason why my letter went viral. I once had someone tell me that they didn't use social media because “they didn't care when I went to the bathroom.” (implying that only useless information is posted on social media outlets). While is true for some people, it not for the majority of people using social media. The world is changing and more and more people are using social media. It is a valuable resource for connecting people together. In the emergent and younger generations (the ones that every church says they want to target) the understanding of community is vastly different than the “Baby Boomer” and “Greatest” generations. In these particular generations, people will take spirituality and community where ever they can find it and that includes the internet.  Social media is not going away it is only going to become more integrated into our lives like the new Facebook phone. Social media connects people from around the world and in the same congregation and therefore should be used effectively.


Most of the commentary I have seen has been debating Evan's criticism of Victoria's Secret. Is Victoria's Secret out of line, or is Pastor Dolive over-reacting?
Such questions absolutely miss the most important point. 

With one post, Evan got us all talking. Church people. Non-church people. News commentators. Cultural commentators. All asking the same questions. Whether or not you agree with "An Open Letter to Victoria's Secret," it changed the conversation.

Facebook is the new public square.Twitter is the new public square. With the click of a mouse, Evan Dolive changed the focus of the public conversation. He was not a celebrity blogger. He was not a nationally known theologian. He didn't be a full page ad in the local paper or a tv spot during the SuperBowl.
Just a pastor, striving to be a public witness. Just a pastor, who one day clicked "publish" on his blog.

And what about you? What about your church?
Will we speak publicly to the world?

(I am grateful to Evan Dolive, whom I have gotten to know on various social media prior to this, for taking the time to answer my questions and provide some background. Bookmark his blog to keep up with his fantastic posts.) 

"Filling in the Gaps" Lent 3C

"Filling in the Gaps"
A sermon preached at St John Lutheran Church of Prairie Hill on the third Sunday in Lent, March 3, 2013. Texts: 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 and Luke 13:1-9.

I tire of sermons that shy away from the "big questions." So this one jumps right into the deep end, with the question: "Why do people suffer?"







Subscribe to Sermon Podcast via Itunes

Subscribe to Sermons in an RSS reader

Church of England & Female Bishops

Today, the Church of England voted on whether or not to allow female bishops to serve the church. It was fascinating to watch. #Synod was one of the fastest moving twitter streams I have ever seen - especially for church related stuff.

The Church of England votes in three different groups: The House of Bishops, the House of Clergy, and the House of Laity. The motion for female bishops had to be approved by a two-thirds majority in all three Houses in order to pass. It received the necessary votes in the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy, but not in the House of Laity.

I have seen my share of church-dividing issues over the years. This, however, was not in my denomination. I have my connections to the Church of England, but at the end of the day I am an uninvolved observer. As such, this vote raises a few questions that will take some serious wrestling - not just by the Church of England, but by Christians of many stripes.

1) This vote may bring the Church of England closer in relationship to the Roman Catholic Church, but it widens the divide between the CofE and Protestant churches. Even the Episcopal Church has a female Presiding Bishop. So my first question is: What will this vote do to the relationships between the Church of England and Protestant churches?

2) Both the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy approved this measure. Often, the clergy are depicted as the ones grasping on to authority and control, refusing to change with the times. My second question: What does this vote mean for the (usually liberal) folks who argue that the clergy should have less decision making authority, and the laity should have more?

3) Prior to the vote, the Synod had a time of prayer for discernment. In fact, like all church legislative gatherings, the whole gathering has been immersed in prayers for guidance. We talk of how the Holy Spirit has guided the church through the centuries, and affirm that God's Spirit will not abandon the church. Which brings me to my last question: What does it mean (theologically speaking) to affirm the Holy Spirit's guidance of the church, when I vehemently disagree with the decisions of the church?

In the midst of the grieving and rejoicing that is taking place in the Church of England and the rest of the Anglican Communion, these are the questions with which we must all wrestle. I don't know that I have any answers, but I am looking forward to the conversation!

Getting Married ... Twice

Today is our wedding. Sort of. Kind of. A little bit. Let me back up and explain.

In most American church weddings, two things happen. First, a marriage license is signed, which was issues by the state. This document entitles a couple to the legal and financial privileges that come from being married. The legislature decides who can receive this license, the rights provided by at are guaranteed by the court system, and the person who signs it does so as an agent of the state.

Second, the church declares God's blessing on the couple and their life together and the community offers their prayers and support to them. The church (or the parent church body) decides who may or may not receive this blessing.

In most American church weddings, these two things happen at the same time. The pastor functions as the representative of both the church and the state. This -- as one might imagine -- produces some sticky questions. What happens when the state says a marriage is legal, but the church says that it is not a holy relationship? Or vice-versa, what happens when the church says a relationship is holy, but the state does not legally recognize it? By what criteria does the state authorize a person as a member of the clergy? And many many others.

This wasn't always the case. In the Roman world, the church was not recognized as any sort of authority. Why would the Roman Empire care whether or not a couple received a blessing from an underground, illegal sect? And so, couples would have their relationship recognized by the magistrate, to receive the legal benefits of marriage. And then they would ask their priest to bless that relationship in a separate act.

As the structures of the Roman world began to fall apart, the church took over the legal aspect of marriage. In the Middle Ages, the church was a state-supported institution. The local prince would often make the decision about who the local priest should be, and his salary would come out of the state's treasury.  In this time, a couple would stand outside of the doors of the church where the priest would perform the legal marriage. Then, married already in the eyes of the state, the couple would enter into the church to receive the blessing of God and the prayers of the community.

In much of the industrialized world, there has been a return to the older model. Couples go to the courthouse to get legally married. And then they go to their faith community to ask for a blessing on that marriage. As the rest of the world adopted the example of the American revolution - which rejected the idea of a state-supported church - they have sought to separate the work of the courthouse from the work of the church.

As a pastor, I am not called to government work. There are people who are gifted at it, and for whom I give thanks. But I am not one of them. I don't want to be in the business of being an agent of the state. In my study of church history, it does not work out well for the church when it starts doing the work of the state.

As a couple, Megan and I think that there is a difference between what is legal and what is holy. And we want to be intentional about those things. And so we are separating them out. We want the benefits of a marriage that is recognized by the government of the United States, and so we are getting a legal marriage. We also want the blessing of God on our marriage, and the prayers of our community, so we are getting a church marriage.

Let me be clear. Most Americans do both the legal and the religious marriage at the same time. Those are good, holy, and legal marriages. I am not disparaging those weddings. I am, however, asking if perhaps it is time to rethink how we as a church and country recognize the relationships of people who chose to spend their life together.

So today is our wedding. Our legal, state recognized wedding. When we fill out forms that ask about our legal status as a couple, this will be our anniversary.

And Sunday is our wedding. Our celebration with our family, friends, and community of faith. Sunday is when we are asking for God's blessing on our life together. When it is time to celebrate with friends and family, this will be our anniversary.

same-sex marriage, theology of marriage, holy matrimony, gay marriage, church and state

Why Do Weddings Matter?

Buckle in. Here's a shock: as I sit here writing my monthly newsletter article I have marriage on my mind. Maybe it has something to do with long to-do list I have sitting next to me, with things to get done for my own wedding.

So the most basic question: What exactly is a wedding? Or, to put it another way, why does a wedding matter?

We most often think about a wedding as being all about the couple. It is when the couple says their vows to one another, it is their special day, it is a celebration of their love. All those things are nice, but I think that they miss much of the point of the Christian wedding service. Vows could be said before a justice of the peace, or even in private. And ideally, any couple should be celebrating their love for one another every day.

Such an assumption about the importance of a wedding also misses point of Lutheran worship. The theological emphasis of Lutheran worship is not on the worshipers. No, wedding is first and foremost not about the bride or the groom, but about God.

In a service of marriage, we ask for God to bless the life of the bride and groom. No matter how nice the bride’s dress, no matter how cute the flower girl, the center of attention at a wedding is God. The most important part of a wedding is what God does. God blesses the couple, and the community.

But then the bride and groom, right? Nope. Secondly, a church wedding is about the community. Again, a couple could go off and get married in a private ceremony (and many couples do that—these are also holy and blessed marriages). But to get married in the church, surrounded by the community of faith, gives the community an important role to play. Those who are gathered at the wedding act on behalf of the whole church, on behalf of the whole people of God. On behalf of the church, the community that is gathered witnesses the couple’s vows. But even more importantly, the community that is gathered also makes a vow, to support and care for the couple. A wedding is about the support and prayers of the community of faith.

Only at the very bottom of the list, the church wedding is about the vows of the couple. There—in the presence of God and the community—the couple declares their vows to one another. Blessed by God, blessed by the community, the couple goes out to live their life.

 There are lots of different sorts of weddings—from big church weddings to services at the courthouse to an elopement. No matter the setting, these are the things that matter in a wedding service: God—community—and the couple.

This is an edited version of my September 2012 newsletter article for St. John Lutheran Church of Prairie Hill. 

The Break-Up

I've done all that I can to repair this relationship, really I have. Despite the great times we have had together, this just isn't going to work out. We've been through second chances, and third chances, and more. But I am done.

I am breaking up with the local Christian bookstore. Once upon a time, I was a religious bookstore addict. If there was a religious bookstore of any sort, I would find it and spend hours perusing the stacks - usually walking out with a weighty stack of books. I loved local Christian bookstores.

Sure, I could get the same books online. But I could not walk into the store, wander through the aisles, browse through the books. I couldn't take a book home the same day that I discovered it and read through it immediately.

Then, as a pastor, I started to pay more attention. After all, this is also where the members of the church I serve shop. This is also where they would turn first, looking for good reading material about their faith. And I started to see the relationship tearing apart.

For some context, I live in a county of about 25,000 (a town of about 14,000). In this community there are 15 Lutheran churches, 2 large Roman Catholic parishes, and scattered UMC, PCUSA, and Episcopal congregation. In terms of the religious landscape, a very mainline dominated community.

It started with the Bibles. Over my five years here, I noticed the number of NRSVs on the shelf shrinking (the preferred translation in most of the mainline congregations in town). The store has 6 floor-to-ceiling bookcases of Bibles. The last time I went into the store I counted 6 NRSV Bibles on those 6 bookcases. This is not where I am going to send members to buy a new Bible.

Then I started to look at the most recent additions to the shelves. Do I really want the women in my church looking to Twilight as an example of good Christian relationships? Does anyone else find this as ridiculous as I do?

And then there's this: Preparing to Be a Help Meet. Let me go out on a limb: my fiancee will not be reading this book. Sorry. And anyone who gives this to my daughter should watch their back. I am raising my daughter to be a woman who knows who she is, who gains her identity first and foremost as a child of God, all on her own. And if I wouldn't want my daughter to read it, I'm not going to recommend it to any other woman in my church. (Do you think that Tamar read this before she seduced Judah?)

And then there was this. Don't get me wrong: Chuck Norris is awesome. Not going to argue about that. But can anyone tell me where the words "Jesus," "Christianity" or "faith" appear on the description of this book? Unless your particular religion is patriotism (which it is for many, so there's that), this does not belong in your religious bookstore.

I could go on. These are just the tip of the iceberg. And also, the last straw. I'm done. I am breaking up with the local Christian bookstore. I will continue to look for a Christian bookstore that is selling resources that promote the same sort of faith that is preached about and taught in the congregations I love. Until then, I am done.

God is a Single Parent

The other day, I found myself talking with a friend about what it’s like to be a divorced parent. I explained that when my daughter and I play monsters, she's the baby-monster and I’m the daddy-monster; but when we play dolls, I’m the mommy-doll while she’s the baby-doll. Yes, I’m the fixer of broken things in our house, but I’m also the painter of fingernails and the braider of hair. In many ways, single parents are called to provide both motherly and fatherly love. And in families with divorced parents, both mothers and fathers are called to be both things when the beloved child is in their home.

While talking about this with my friend it occurred to me: God is a single parent.

Spend any time at all in the world of preachers and lovers of theology, and you’ll encounter debate over images & language we use to speak of God. On one side stand those who argue it’s only appropriate to use male imagery to talk about God -- God as Father, male pronouns, etc. On the other side stand those who argue for female imagery -- God as Mother, female pronouns, etc. Between either side is a spectrum of people trying to discern how to faithfully speak about God with images and language that will appeal to modern Christians.

Have we missed the point?

Study the images, metaphors, analogies, and language used in Scripture to describe God and what’s revealed is how God loves us like a parent loves a child. In one passage we hear about God as a father looking after his wayward children. In another, we hear about God as a mother nurturing her children. And if that’s the point, then perhaps neither "God as mother" nor "God as father" alone will get us where we need to be. Perhaps what we really need is a theology of God’s love as single parent!

As a divorced parent, my job is to provide my daughter with both fatherly and motherly love when she’s in our home (just as I know her mother provides both for her in theirs). Similarly, God's love is at times best expressed with words and images traditionally associated with a paternal love and care; at others with words and images traditionally associated with maternal love and care. It is not a case of having to choose between one or the other. Or, one could use an image that encompasses both ways of loving: God is a single parent.

In the world of single parents, divorced parents, merged families, and blended families, we’re discovering new ways to provide children with the love they need and deserve. There’s no longer only one way to be a family, nor only one way to love a child. Perhaps in these wonderful expressions of family we can find new ways to speak of God’s love for the world.

In Defense of Seminaries: Theology Matters!

The conversation seems to come up twice a year.In the spring, around graduation time, and then again in the fall as enrollment happens, a glut of conversations questioning the value of seminary education.And almost universally, the conclusion (at least in the public debate) seems to be that it is time to do away with traditional seminary education.

"We need new models!" "It's too expensive!" "We can't be tied to brick & mortar institutions!" And on goes the list of battle cries. To be clear: there are some very good, intelligent criticisms leveled against traditional seminary education.As the saying goes, some of my best friends are opposed to seminary education. However, I strongly believe not only that traditional seminary education can be a good thing, but that the church of the twenty-first century needs traditional seminary education.

First, many of the arguments against seminary education are fueled by the current milieu of anti-expert rhetoric. We want politicians who are not professional politicians. We are told to distrust "mainstream news" sources (usually expressed as a distrust of professional news outlets and commentators). We walk into the doctors office with our own diagnosis made from our own research. And into this mix comes seminary education - a system that asks people to devote three to five years to study, to become in some sense professionals or experts.

I don't want to spend too much space on this point, but simply put, we need experts. Not everyone who talks about the economy is an economist. I would not be a person who should make fundamental decisions about the economy. Sure, I have my opinions, based on my reading about our economy and my experiences. But you would be gravely mistaken to think that because of those opinions I have an insightful understanding of how an economy the size of the US economy works, let alone the global economy. Not everyone who talks about the body and health is a surgeon. My chiropractor has done wonderful things for my spine, and often helps me to feel much better. But when I go for a vasectomy, I want a professional, an expert!

And not everyone who talks about God is a theologian. Yes, I know, we've been told that since "theology just means words about God" everyone who talks about God is a theologian. But it is a logical fallacy. In the same way that my personal opinions about the economy (having my personal economic theories, if you will) do not make me an economist, our personal thoughts about God (having a personal theology) does not make us all theologians.

Theology, Christian theology, is a comprehensive system that shapes our understanding who God is, the reality of the world, and who we are in relation to that God and one another. Rooted in the Gospel, the theologian is informed by the great teachers of the church and (in our tradition) creeds and confessional documents.

Ok, ok. You could argue that anyone could do those things, without a formal theological education. And you'd be right (If you tell anyone I said you're right, I'll call you a liar). I certainly know some brilliant theologians who have not had formal theological education. They have, however, put themselves through a theological education. And - much more importantly - I would say that they are the exception to the rule. Most people who put themselves out there as "self-educated" theologians quite simply aren't. And - here's the point - it is dangerous to take them at their word.

Theology matters! In May of this year, thousands of individuals gave up on their lives, ready for the end of the world because that is what "theologian" Harold Camping said was going to happen. Many of us laughed at Camping, but the reality is thousands of lives were ruined because of bad theology. In April 1993, 76 people died in Waco, Texas, and even more lives were ruined because of the teaching of "theologian" Vernon Howell. Maybe these examples are extreme, but the point to an important truth: theology matters, and has the potential have serious effects on the lives we lead. There is also the family who will never return to a Christian community, because of the "theologian" who taught them that their daughter was sick because of the sins of their family. Or the countless individuals in our congregations, confused by popular "theologians" about death and resurrection.

When Harold Camping and NT Wright, or Oprah and Douglas John Hall, or Joel Osteen and Kathryn Tanner are considered to be equal authorities, something has gone wrong. If theology matters, then it also matters who we look to as theologians.

A seminary education provides the opportunity to immerse oneself in the roots of our theological tree. To study and read Scripture, to sit at the feet of the great teachers of the church, and to engage in theological exploration with other learners. One can, in the midst of life, do this on one's own; but traditional seminary education gives the opportunity to do nothing but this for three years. In addition, in a traditional seminary environment there are trusted guides who have been acknowledged as theological authorities, who provide direction and structure to theological inquiry.

Seminary education matters, because theology matters.

Next thoughts: Seminary education as formation. But until then, what say you? Is everyone a theologian? Does seminary education matter?