Revisiting the Truth Project

Last fall I did a series of posts reflecting on the video series promoted by Focus on the Family called The Truth Project. It was a well-produced series that promotes, by my assessment, a foundational Christian philosophy that has gone on the offensive in recent years as it has lost steam in the face of the demise of modern philosophy. I continue to receive many hits from folks searching for information to the Truth Project and thought I would repost my most recent response to a Truth Project inquiry.

Someone inquired to my reaction to this link regarding Lesson 9 on the state. I offered the following thoughts:

Thanks for the post, Randy and the link. I looked over the information and it lays out Tackett's premise in regards to the role of the "sphere of the state." In some of my other posts on The Truth Project, I've critiqued this "sphere" understanding to the Bible.

It is Tackett's understanding that the Bible somehow maps out this grandiose social order. Now, I'm the first to acknowledge there is a great order and scheme behind the great creative God, but I'm not convinced that he isn't over playing the cards on this one. Foundational to his argument (again, a philosophical underpinning that I've already rebutted in this post) is the idea that God has created blue printed confines within which the state must operate.

His case point is a handy one considering his conservative realpolitik. Why not consider the question, "Can the state murder unjustly?" His case study on can the state steal is simply his case against the welfare state.

In his argument he chooses the relatively obscure story of Uzziah. Now, Uzziah's in the Scriptures and I also believe he should be considered. But, it could hardly be argued that Uzziah somehow represents an exemplary story of the core identity of Old Testament social ethics.

A broader and more fundamental Old Testament example would be Leviticus 25's teaching of the year of Jubilee. Every 50 years the state of Israel was to forcibly redistribute wealth. It's not often termed that way since it sends up so many red flags, but is that not exactly what happens? Those who had become imprisoned were to be freed. Those who had lost everything were given a fresh start. Those who had accumulated too much had to give up their excess. Interestingly, Tackett makes strong statements about the Bible's teaching making it being an overstepping of the role of the state to do exactly what Israel was commanded to do (and later reprimanded by the Old Testament prophets for not doing!) And this is no obscure law on the edge of the Torah - this was fundamental to it's economy! By no means am I claiming that this solves any discussion . . . however, it blasts major holes in Tackett's arguments and shows him to be rather inept in his presentation by not dealing with the most glaring shortcomings of his overgeneralization.

One other aspect of the notes I'll comment on is the listing of the states and their leaders who have shown "obvious overstepping of the state's authority." It's a list of the notable notorious world leaders: the worst of the worst - Hitler, Stalin, etc. While I am in no way comparing these evil empires with the American empire, I do think it deserves mention that the United States and other Western empires are not allowed a free pass. Millions have died at the hands of American militaristic campaigns.

Again, I'm not in any way denying the blessings of our country. However, as Christians we are called to be prophets, standing back from the culture and acknowledging God when we see Him, acknowledging sin when we see it. More Christians need to acknowledge America is an empire. The only empires in the Bible were staunchly addressed in the Bible (be it Rome, Egypt, etc.) We must not give America some free pass. Tackett's theology here is a house of cards created to avoid real critique and consideration of prophetic implication for the new empire in which we find ourselves.

Thanks again, Randy for you comments, I'm going to post this as my newest blog entry as well since it's been awhile since I've commented on the Truth Project.

More Politics and The Truth Project

I have a million things to do, but I want to put a quick blog post up in my hopes of being a little more consistent. Since we've returned from our vacation, I've been pulled a million different directions and I've been working at getting focused - all the while, still adjusting to our new schedule with Mary Beth and Clark at the preschool from 9:00 - 12:00. It's been a challenge.

I want to reference two different topics in this post.

First of all, more thoughts about politics. Recently I have spent some time watching some late night political talk shows. What a waste of time. Really! What a waste of time. Any Christian will have some explaining to do on judgment day as to why they wasted so much time in that arena. All the hosts are so extreme - regardless of the "slant." There are so many things out there that are more profitable. Some people reading this no doubt watch those shows and are offended that I would make such a swift/all encompassing statement - but seriously, what is the profit? You are more "up on the issues"? I've felt that shortcoming lately. It's easy to feel like you need to educate yourself to better debate the issues with friends and co-workers. The kingdom call us to a higher plane. If politically-obsessed Christians would spend more time creatively considering the crises of our world and the differences they could make in their own circles . . . I just have to think that is more profitable. Is there anything wrong with watching them? I'd say the answer is in that old adage: everything in moderation. If you want to watch a political show, fine. Pick one - just one, and do something more profitable with the rest of your time.

I plan to make a longer post in reference to Brian McLaren's latest book I'm nearly finished with - Everything Must Change. It's taken me awhile to get to it (I bought it last year at the zoe conference in Nashville - over a year ago). It's an interesting work and I'll post more later.

Two couples from our congregation spent a day in September attending a simulcast training presentation of Focus on the Family's The Truth Project. We began showing the series the week we were in Maine - three Sundays ago. It is a 50 minute video presentation, followed by a thirty minute small group experience. The two families that did the training were over-enthusiastic about it and brought that excitement to our church in hopes of bringing more depth to our membership.

Unfortunately, I head up our teens' small group on Sunday nights and that's really the only night that we can be together. I had some doubts about how much the teenagers would connect with it, and it's the only time we're together, so I was reluctant to separate the teens out. Anyway, the bottom line is I don't get to watch the videos with the rest of the church or participate in the small groups. There is a make up group during the week, and last night I attended that group watching the second video about worldview and philosophy.

I'll say up front that I expressed (quietly) some concern . . . no, not concern, doubt - about the underlying philosophy The Truth Project would be coming from - before seeing, but implying from what I know about Focus on the Family and the teasers that we watched. Our membership is excited about the series, and I in no way wanted to damper that, but instead wanted (and still want) people to consider the presentations critically. A note about Focus on the Family - I think they've done some good things and James Dobson began with a good direction, but has gone a direction that I am not comfortable at all and his political lobbying has outweighed the message he began with. Extremely disappointing. So, their affiliation with FOTF drew initial skepticism.

I searched for some information online about The Truth Project because I was unfamiliar with it, and couldn't find much. I did get a few hits praising it, but nothing real substantative, mostly passing references. I did find one substanitive blog in regards to it who shared concerns that I saw going in. If you are interested you can read his posts here. Maybe it was a bad idea to "jade" my own opinion before watching, but through some of his other posts I saw a similar theological outlook. So, if you see some repetition in my own thoughts below, I probably got them from him, and I think he was right on.

OK, so in reference to the second lesson:

It seems to me that the professor, Del Tackett, and the others involved in the series (R.C. Sproul, Os Guiness, Ravi Zaccarias, and others) are reacting to and struggling through a postmodern philosophical and theological shift that has already happened. This video highlights how unhelpful terms can be. "Postmodernism" according to Tackett is a false worldview that he groups next to "secular humanism," "Islam," among others. From my understandings, the philospohical foundations for this argument is not very accurate. Towards the end of the video the professor uses a chart which shows "Truth" on one side (what we're all after) and all the other "world views" on the other side throwing their lies at us, decieving us.

That is foundationalism. If we could just see those foundations, just weed out all the manipulations and half-truths and lies, we'd only be left with "truth." Tackett never addresses how we can do that when the only thing we have to work through are all those -isms and -ologies that shape our thinking.

He uses a box and some out-dated Sagan video series to illustrate the limits philosophy has put on its self. To see nothing outside the box leads only to despair and inner-conflict - Nietzche's nihilism (though for some reason, he never mentions Nietzhe). I don't like his box analogy. It's much too simple and cuts a critical step out. I told our small group I think I'd compare it more to a Rubik's cube. Sure, there's something outside the box (something that every poll shows 95% of people believe, I'm not sure why he spent so much time rehashing a dressed up ontological apologetic) but while we are inside the box are we free to understand that something on our own? I know it freaks out those absolutists, but relativity is inevitable. The great thing about Truth is not that once we have it figured out we are transformed (which is what I hear Tackett saying), but it is in our search for it and our conversations with other in regards to it, we are transformed. Realizing just how little of it we really know.

This is an area of theology I am extremely interested in, but unfortunatley, have difficulty communicating. This makes my interaction through this video series a challenge. I think I will be going back through Grenz and Franke's book Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context. This was my first exposure to the topic and highlights the divide alive and well in "evangelical theology." Tackett is more espoused to the D.A. Carson's and Millard Erickson's (this divide can be easily seen in Erickson's response to Grenz's book Renewing the Center which he aptly titled in opposition: Reclaiming the Center.

In other words, the disagreement and problems that I see coming in this video series are not something I just made up. It is reflective of a broader issue of doing theology in a postmodern context in a post-rationalism, post-absolute world - the world of fragmentation as Grenz and Franke refer to it. I'll end with a quote from Grenz and Franke highlighting the trouble with Hackett's criticism of postmodernity:

"Clearly postmodernism cannot be dismissed as nothing more than a deconstrutive agenda that stands in stark opposition to Christian faith and thought. On the contrary, there is much evidence that suggests that the postmodern context has actually been responsible for the renewal of theology as an intellectual discipline after a period of stagnation under the weight of mdernists demands concerning the acquisition of knowledge. Freed from teh constraints of modernity, postmodern concerns have spawned numerous new theological programs." (p. 22)

If you have seen The Truth Project, I would love to dialogue further about it. I am excited to be having this dialogue in our church and appreciate these two couples wanting to be challenged and wanting to challenge our folks. I hope we are all up to that challenge.

Truth Project Reflections

I have seen a few more installments of the Truth Project without comment, choosing instead some political reflections. Tonight, I should finish reading Shane Claiborne's and Chris Haw's very impressive Jesus for President, so I'll rejoin that topic soon, but I did want to get back to a few thoughts on the Truth Project.

The last two installments of the Truth Project dealt with the two age-old questions of "Who is Man?" and "Who is God?" Interestingly, as least to me, he began with "Who is man?" before addressing "Who is God?" While not wanting to downplay the help these videos may be for many, I continue to be troubled by the underlying premise of much of the teaching. I've spoken previously about the underlying foundationalism from which the teacher comes. It continues to be a problem for me. For Del Tackett, the instructor, the world is laid out in black and white terms: good and evil. If something is not good, it is evil. This is why, in his "Who is God?" lesson, he states he began with man rather than God - man is evil and we have to understand that before looking at the nature of God.

I was more troubled with his teaching on man than his teaching on God stemming mostly from his Calvinist leanings which run counter to my tradition (suprisingly, and a little alarmingly, however, few of our members seem to notice any fundamental difference in perspective). I don't doubt that there is something to be learned in Calvinism, however, I cannot support the total depravity which was, in essence, the teaching in this video. Man, so stated the video, is inherently evil. This was the fundamental lesson of this session, and I cannot uphold such a view. I believe the Bible teaches that man is inherently good! Created in the image of God. Now, Tackett does acknowlege this in kind of a side comment at the end of the video as if to acknowledge the shortcoming of his own theology of anthropology.

What I found especially ironic about this session was the underlying premise was that man is inherently evil and therefore, nothing of the world is to be trusted. And yet, he paints himself into a corner at the end, because he accuses humanity of all the ills and leaves no hope - we messed up and we have to wait it out until Jesus comes back and fixes it all. What of the already of the kingdom!? He never addresses it. How then shall we live? (We'll get there, we'll get there, I'm sure he would say, but you cannot separate the praxis from theory, and here the theor is flawed).

He picks on Maslow and his teaching of the hierarchy of needs. Quoting miscellanious fragments from Maslow, Tackett once again sets up the strawman to show that Maslow is misled and all his teaching is hogwash. He doesn't come right out and say it, but he often jests and makes fun of the theory (really he only disagreed with Maslow's aim in the hierarchy of needs - that man's chief aim is self-actualization - something that he'll hang onto and through synedoche make represent all the teaching of world) but due to his extreme dualism, he throws the whole thing out and says - "What do you expect? He's of the world!" If only discernment was that easy! Instead, it seems to me that Paul would have an Athenian moment here. Your pyramid of hiearchy is good . . . though misguided. God is a God who has already actualized you. You are good by nature! Created in the image of God! To acknowlege total depravity, to me, allows evil to triumph good. No, there is nothing that can trump the good in us, that is what gives us hope now! Living out our faith right now, allowing the image that is within us to trump the cries and desire of the flesh - is that not the point of Romans 8!

The fact of the matter, there is much good (even biblical?) in Maslow's theory. Why must we throw all out, accusing all non-believers of having false motives because they are caught up in some scandal trying to work against us? While this series is dressed up with cool graphics and masquarades as intellectualism, it still remains highly critical and skeptical of all higher learning! After all, the "liberal" academy is after us! I believe that if we uphold the things presented in this video, we will essentially cut ourselves off from communication with higher learning. I'm especially curious to see the next two videos (both on science). At this point, I can't seem him being too enthusiastic about the direction of the sciences.

There is much more I could say on this video, I've said too much already, but I want to also comment on the next video on the nature of God. I found his approach to the question, "Who is God?" very disappointing if not just totally random. He asks the quetion and then never answers it. I mean, after all, how could you answer it? But, I would say he never even really addresses it. He has this long pastoral discourse on God being a jealous God which was sentimental and fine, but I found it random and wasn't sure how that fit into his main discussion of who is God. He never mentioned the communal aspect of the trinity as portrayed in Scripture. This is fundamental to the nature of God and as far as I'm concerned if you are only going to give one shot (one hour) at the nature of God and never address that aspect, I'm just puzzled. It continues a very worrisome theme that has been there throughout - a theology that is almost entirely individualistic.

His discussion of sin was largely individualistic (our choices). His discussion of God was entirely individualistic (our own personal relationship). The remaining "pillars" that he sets out to address in the end of this series (economy, work, politics) are going to be malnourished because of this complete ignoring of the communal aspect of the essense of God: in theological jargon, a "functional trinitarian theology." This is where theology has moved in recent years, and to ignore it comletely shows the reliance of antiquated, foundational modernistic philosophy underlying this entire video series.

With all that said, it's probably going to connect to the modern thinkers in churches (50 - plus), but really miss those of us under that age. It raises some big time questions about the direction churches that work from that philosophy are headed.

The Truth Project Twice More

We are nearing the end of our small group study of The Truth Project. Last night I watched the second to last installment about the "sphere of labor." I did not get to see the last video about "The American Experiment" but have a pretty good idea of where he was going with it - a place I will be spending a great deal of time arguing against in the coming weeks. Essentially believing that America is a great last hope for the Gospel and we need to continue to try and "save it for God" or bring it back to God or whatever. Anyone reading this who has been here before knows that I especially struggle with such a perspective. I just finished reading Gregory Boyd's book entitled The Myth of a Christian Nation. It is a great pastoral piece written to challenge and make people uncomfortable in dealing with their idolatry of nationalism. This problem is alive and well and way too often has gone unaddressed. I would like to say more about the book as I found it to be a poignant and sharp pastoral treatment of a topic that is all too often left in academia.

However, back to the truth project. I had many misgivings and much reserve in studying this material knowing that it was produced (or at least marketed) by Focus on the Family. I knew there would be some underlying agenda-driven points along the way. It met me squarely with this video on labor. Now, I do applaude the inclusion of this topic in the series. He is right that we too often do not speak of the place of labor in our theological framework. And for the first part of his video I felt he did a fair job of presenting a biblical perspective. Our role in work is rooted in God's working in the Genesis account. God worked. He created us to work. Work is not inherently evil. The Fall did affect work (he states that the text shows it affected the ground, not work itself, which may be a semantical variation, but I don't feel as though he gives enough credance here to the affect the Fall has had - he sure was adament that the Fall had affected our moral capacity in the rest of the series!)

When he moves away from Genesis, however, he begins some hermentuetical gymnastics to make his right wing political ideology fit the Bible. I found his use of the biblical text in this video to be incredibly selective and misleading and incredibly unfortunate. He loves the Old Testament where it talks about leaving behind the gleanings for the poor people to work - to ensure they WORK for their wages. The poor should not be given hand outs. OK, I'm with him there. Systematic rehabilitation is at the core of addressing the complex issues of poor - but little progress will be made by wood-working factories leaving the sawdust for poor people to collect and recycle (the "incredible" example he gives). But here, as throughout this series, he is showing an incredibly myopic and fundamentalist perspective of the text. The Bible says it, I believe it, let's move on. He came across to me as a very well-intentioned (I don't doubt his heart) white, middle class American who has taken little time to sit down accross the table from the impoverished families who are all out of "easy" answers. For Tackett, everything is flat. The poor need jobs; people with money need to make jobs so they will work. If only it was that simple!

This is, to me, one of the most frustrating aspects that frequently surfaces from evangelical Christianity - an utter disregard for the complex sociological and economic factors affecting the world. Please don't take this the wrong way, but there comes a point and time when we need to put our Bibles down and learn from economics, sociology (and all other disciplines) and struggle and wrestle with how this impacts our understanding of the sacred texts. It is like Tackett has been unaware through this entire series how he has been shaped by these disciplines and through his life experience, and instead stamps his perspective as the way.

Unfortunately, his way doesn't consider the fundamental economic program in the Old Testament. I have had disagreements with his teaching throughout the series, but felt as though it served as good discussion. Some of his statements and teachings in this series are downright misleading and un-biblical. I am flabergasted that he would spend 15 minutes of his hour long session on the gleanings passage and NEVER mention jubilee. Jesus reads from the text in Isaiah at the beginning of his ministry in Luke stating that he has come to fulfill this (in their hearing). Israel was intended to be built around the idea of redistrubtion of wealth - something he lists on the screen that the Bible teaches is a SIN! A sin! It is a biblical teaching! I'm not supporting socialism or anything like that . . . my point is that Tackett has allowed his culture to dictate his understanding of the text. The Bible does teach that this is a sin. It actually looks a lot like what the early church did. Jubilee forcefully redistributed the wealth every fifty years. I don't believe that this makes everything easy to understand . . . but if you are going to have a Bible study you CAN'T spend a fourth of your times talking about the gleanings (because that fits into your Republican/Protestant work ethic ideology) and not address the jubilee (because that fits more into a Democratic/liberal sharing of wealth that you don't agree with). Why else would he avoid this teaching? It is even more central to Old Testament theology? And of course he went to the Proverbs to uphold the value of work and all that. There is a lot to be wrestled with here, and he avoids the conflict altogether and instead presents our form of economy as though it is ordained in Scripture - it is not. It may be a better version than most or all other economies . . but it is not presented in the Bible (our economy is totally foreign to the biblical authors).

He makes the same mistake in the New Testament. He rushes to you don't work you don't eat and says . . . See, told you. But totally avoids Jesus' fundamental teachings from the Sermon on the Mount - if someone asks for your tunic, give him your cloak as well. Tackett would say give him a job. Hey that's great . . . but all I've got is a tunic and cloak. His poor use of the Bible in this episode shows that he is not a theologian working outside his field, mistraining those in the ways of his ideology.

He shows his card and the house of cards falls out from under him by a simple and seemingly harmless comment he makes off the cuff and on the side. To completely understand this you'll have to know the general outline that he uses for his teaching. There are great foundations built on the nature and character of God, anthropological insights, supporting pillars of philosophy and others and on top are these spheres: labor, sociology, and others. His premise is that these spheres are the created order set in place by God with a purpose. It is when these spheres overlap into another sphere that sin enters. It sounds great, but it's not biblical. The Bible nowhere lays out some created order that everything follows. This is where modernistic scientific models break down. Sure, there is some good in organizing things this way and it is a helpful way to talk about things that don't get addressed enough. However, you can't draw logical conclusions based on these faulty logic premises. That fails to see them for what they are. They are illustrates for the sake of discussion, not ontologically secure facts.

His comment is that the spheres of government (the state) and labor are different and that jobs can't come from the state. Wait . . . was that John McCain or Dell Tackett. The Bible doesn't say anything about that. He knows that, that's why he quickly moves on, but if you're paying attention, you can't let him get by with that comment. His whole system breaks down if you begin to use it in that way. My postmodern mind was fatigued by trying to follow his thoroughly modernistic approach and application to Scriptures. It furthers my suspicions that The Truth Project is a thoroughly modernistic agent dressed up with some bells and whitles (there was a really well done and cool video at the beginning of this session depicting God's creation), but riddled with the same issues that are being debunked by postmodernity.

In the end, Tackett offers too many answers, and not enough questions in an area that is very challenging and complex. I appreciate his willingness to address the topic, but wish that he would do so acknowledging his biasses.

Divergent Emergent Perspectives

I ran across this clip on Youtube today searching for emergent discussions. I found it interesting since both RC Sproul and Ravi Zaccarias are featured in the discussion - I never did figure out who the third guy was, but the link for the video on youtube references it as a Ligonier ministry - RC Sproul's creature. These two are prominently featured in the Truth Project, and their perspectives were unfamiliar to me before our time with the Truth Project. With our congregation in the midst of the discussion, I know find it important to better inform myself. Admittedly, most of the reading that I do is focused among emergent-type authors. Adding to the difficulty is the fact that I am part of churches of Christ who aren't really evangelicals (though some of us are looking more and more like them), but find ourselves, for the most part, of of these kinds of discussions.

So . . . a few thoughts on this video clip. The speakers unfairly use Brian McLaren as their dartboard picture. He's an easy target, no doubt, due to what is quickly becoming a prolific writing resume and his widespread appeal in the Emergent Church. However, he is better seen as the representative pastor of the emergent movement as opposed to the theologian and thinker. He is these things, but not nearly at the level of others. In large part, this area of theology is slowly gaining momentum in the academy. Better conversation points should be noted with N.T. Wright, Stanly Grenz, and John Franke, among others.

The end of the clip shows the climax over the issue of homosexuality and the "audacious" claims of McLaren. I don't want to post at length here, but the last thing I wanted to do was to share in the standing ovation of the crowd. The sharpness and condescending tone of their remarks were also unfortunate.

The relativist perspective they caricature is never seriously dealt with but cast aside in reference to extremist points. The one point they make that I feel needs further conversation among "evangelicals" is the accusation of the emergent movement as conservatives (theologically) finding of liberalism. There is some truth in this for much of what I read. I think the conversation at large is not confined to this, but it is a contributing factor. However, as a true postmodernist, I have to say that I don't find much help in those categories they loosely throw around. Anyway, for what it's worth, this video explores the reaction conservative evangelicals are having to postmoderns.

Truth Project: Reflections from Treatment of Science

I've had a bit of hiatus from the blog, and that was partly intentional as I want to continue my discussion of Focus on the Family's Truth Project, our church has been watching and discussing together. I missed a week's post because the section on science wound up being done in two parts, and subsequently took two weeks to get done. So . . . I watched the second installment of science last Wednesday and finally had a minute to post a few thoughts on it here (you can find the methodology behind the lessons here).

The professor of the class has been erecting pillars upon the foundation of his opening three lessons (who is God, who is man, what is truth). The first pillar was philosophy and now we come to science (to be followed by history and then ethics).

I found his two parts on science very interesting . . . and peculiar. Boiling it down, Tackett goes through a dressed up cosmological argument for the existence of God. I find it interesting that he offers this "world view" as though it is new (I mean he points to Scripture, of course, but never ackowledges the long history of the cosmological argument, although he does really like Paley's watchmaker argument). It's nothing more than a fancy cosmological argument with cool graphics. This argument has long been a key argument for the existence of God for Christians.

Tackett attempts to throw new fodder in the argument by utilizing skeptics of evolutionary theory from the scientific community (who are not necessarily Christians). In general, I thought the series on science was pretty good - he begins by reading, "The heavens declare the glory of God . . ." from the Psalter, and looks at the many incredible mechanisms that make up life.

The unfortunate aspect of the sessions are his insistently argumentative and combative tone when it comes to those to whom he disagrees - and in science he finds his enemy in Darwin. On several occassions, as he has throughout this series, he mocks and laughs at those who do not believe. If he had left the tone worshipful and awe-inspiring of the created order God has made . . . I would have nothing negative to say in regards to these two weeks. However, Tackett cannot leave it at that. He must deal with the "perniscious liars" who "manipulate truth" and are basically out to get us. I, again, cannot follow the rationale that gets him there.

For Tackett, it's basically a black and white issue. God created everything (nearly, if not completey) literally as it is portrayed in the Bible. Anyone who sheds doubt on this fact is a pernicious liar and the Evil One has overtaken them. When you get through the two-week lesson you are led to believe that anyone who believes is evolution is completely ignorant and totally misled by the lies of the world. He, once again, builds up a strawman and blows him down. I know it is impossible for him to treat everything in the area of science (it is telling that he limits himself to the Darwin discussion . . . we all know what is coming as we venture nearer the topics of the state and the American experiment - he's already tipping his hand), but I feel as though he does a great disservice by avoiding the more difficult matters.

Instead of picking up on the positives one can see in the world, the searching that continues to go on in science (this was no doubt put together before Ben Stein's movie, Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed), and there are great steps being taken by the science community as they continue to see the incredible world. Tackett does allow for micro-evolution, however he never mentions it in the actual presentation of the two sessions, but only in the post-script seen in the second session. No doubt he's afraid to open that can, and instead prefers to simply push it aside.

With Tacket, I see the long-held antagonism between the church and science. He is quick to mention how science was birthed from the church, but conveniently ignores the incredible persecution brought on by the church once science showed the church's error. Are we beyond that? Could that not still happen today? Charles Darwin has left an indellible mark in science that led a 19th century scientific revolution of near Capernican caliber, surely incorrect on many accounts (how much of Galileo's original findings were later shown to be inaccurate), but tipped a very important domino . . . and they continue to fall to this day.

While I found this session to be closer to where it needs to be, I still left disappointed with the avoidance of the the difficulties in faith and science. Too often the church portrays a message that says, "Yep, we have it all figured out, if you would just get your head out of the sand, you'd see it too." This is exactly what Tackett says. Only the sand is the perniscious lies sold to them by Satan. Why not be up front with people ackowledging the ambiguity of the creation story? Is he not familiar with the ancient near eastern parallels with that story, or does he wish to avoid their sure controversial implications? What about the neaderthals that keep popping up? That seems to fit with Darwin better than Moses. These are the things that we are all exposed to regularly through media, and yet he wants us just to ignore it all because it is all misleading and slanted and lying.

Surely there is a middle road here: to acknowledge the incredible wonder that is seen in creation. One of Tackett's favorite passages in this series is in Romans 1 where Paul talks of how God has clearly revealed himself in his Creation. Tackett takes that to mean that if you can't see it you are an idiot (though he never comes right out and says it). I think he can season that with salt better and ackowledge that we are all seeking for meaning and fulfillment and just maybe we'll see it in creation first, and have to back into a faith in God . . . and that's ok.

The Truth Project and History

In our latest installment of The Truth Project, Dr. Del Tackett tackles the topic of history. After viewing the video, I have to admit that it wasn't what I thought it was going to be (a thought shared by one of the others in the group I watched it with). He said, afterwards, "I thought there would be . . . I don't know . . . more history." The topic title is a little misleading.

Tackett camps out on the frequent Old Testament admonishment to "Remember," looking at numerous passages where Israel was told to "Remember" different events of its life (Sinai, crossing the Red Sea, the Passover, etc.) Beginning here, Tackett states the imperative that we remember history correctly. He spends a good deal of time blasting revisionist history, offering passing insight into his conservative political position as he mentions secular liberals seeking to remember American history differently than the way it was written (basically taking God out of it).

I really like the premise of the topic. "Remember" is such a critical aspect of God's desire for his people. I was astonished that in the entire topic, he didn't mention the Eucharist once to my knowledge. What more key thelogical concept can there be t0 remembering than the communion celebration - "In remembrance of me." This shocking oversight is troubling.

However, the bigger difficulty I had with the history session was its thoroughly modern intepretation of history. He spends a few minutes debunking post-modernism and its lack of a meta-narrative. There's no doubt that the lack of meta-narrative in the postmodern world is cause for concern. However, I strongly disagree with Tackett's solution, which is to hold on to a modern worldview . . . which I think pretty quickly unravels when considering this topic.

Postmodernism, we are told in the video, jettisons the larger meta-narrative in obsession for the smaller individual narrative of the individual. Instead of realizing the great opportunity this offers, Tackett and those contributing to the discussion, bemoan the situation. However, he offers no answer to the problems postmodernism has challeged. Instead, he utterly ignores them as though they don't exist.

I find it truly ironic that he accuses the "world" of myopia when that is exactly the problem I see inherent in his belief system in regards to history. He has a great moving moment in light of a painting of the Pilgrims and talks of the great sacrifices they made to follow what they thought of as God's will - coming to America, expanding the kingdom he even says. What a great people they were, following God's will even to the point of death from the elements. It's interesting that he determines that this is the meta-narrative, the guiding story and following of God's people that will lead no doubt to where he's headed with the session entitled the "Great American Experiment" looming. It was God's will that this nation was founded. Upon the great principles of God. Perhaps that discussion can be had in political circles - but NOT theological ones. I believe that the founding fathers of our nation are irrelevant to the proposition of the church and her relationship to the culture within which she lives. America has baptized the church instead of vice versa. We have become so incredibly self-centered in our discussions of theology and politics. We must repent and overcome this. This point is made incredibly well by Rob Bell in his latest book Jesus Wants to Save Christians (I plan to review that book when I finish it up.) Theologically, we have to deal with the narrative of all people.

What Tackett fails to acknowledge is that the Pilgrims landing on this shore began the process for a much more heinous narrative to unfold as one of the most persecuted and oppressed people in the history of the world who would be massacred. This, too, must fit into our metanarrative. It does not, I contend, fit into the picture that Tackett is painting of history. Instead, it is his perspective that is, indeed, myopic. He sees only the history of his own people, failing to incorporate the story of others . . . which is the great gift of postmodernity. It forces us to consider the story of others. We very well may claim to have a meta-narrative that others can fit . . . but, more likely than not, it will have to be altered in consideration of the others.

The world of postmodernism is not a clean and cut world and it makes those schooled in modernity, like Tackett, very afraid and worried, and, unfortunately, defensive.

And . . . a last just unbelieveable word. Tackett actually tells the audience that the only date he makes his seminary students learn is 1859 - the year that Darwin published The Origin of Species. Wow . . . and he's accusing others of myopia?

Strange Week

This has been a strange week. We got a pretty good snowstorm Monday night into Tuesday. The 8 or 10 inches of snow wasn't that big of a deal, but the inch solid ice that covered everything was. Luckily we didn't get anything near what they did south of us, but it made for a strange week. The preschool was closed at the church every day but one (Monday), meaning our schedule was completely off. Me being a not real scheduled guy meant I struggled through the entire week. I think I had a bit of depression lingering in too (probably still do). That's a solid family trait so I'm sure it will come around from time to time. More than anything, I think it is an internal anxiety knowing how much our lives are about to change. Within the month now, we'll have the baby. Been there, done it before . . . I think that brings more anxiety instead of putting it to bay. In any case, I haven't gotten nearly what I wanted to get done this week (or probably should have). One of the biggest challenges in ministry is being totally at it alone (know what I mean here, I know God is here, but . . . well, you should get it). It's one of the best parts of it - that side everyone envies, but seldom do those same people acknowledge the difficulty that lies there too. Seldom is there a "right" thing to do. There are several options - some good, others better, and a few wrong, but mostly, the onus is on me. That's burden to carry. Haven't carried it well this week.

Anyway, I noticed I have't posted this week and I am trying to be regular. I appreciate everyone's comments. I have had a couple positive interactions this week from folks that I have met here, furthering reassuring me that this blogging things isn't a total waste of time :-) Due to the weather, I was not able to watch the next installment of the Truth Project. Our church finished with the project Sunday, and I need to go back and watch one episode on the state, one on America, and the final one on community. I'll try to briefly (yeah right) comment about each of the three separately. It seems to have been good for many folks to see some critique of each of the vidoes (though I did miss a few).

I also finished the book Onward Christian Soldiers: Freeing the Gospel from Political Captivity by Charles Marsh. Wasn't my favorite book in the world, and I'm not sure I'd recommend it, but there were a few places where I thought it was great. He just skipped around and the logic of the book was a little tough for me to follow.

In this book Marsh offers a stinging criticism of evangelicals in this country and the way they have sold out the Gospel for political power. I don't have time to offer a review of the book, but I'll say that it was a solid work and offered critique consistent with other books I have reviewed (see Jesus for President, The Myth of A Christian Nation, Mere Discipleship, et at.) This book differed slightly in that he took on the evangelical priaise for George W. Bush a little more directly. For Marsh, Bush's election marked the pinnacle of evangelicalism's selling out for political gain. He offers direct criticism of Bush's claimed evangelical faith (it was a little uncomfortable to read him being critical of another's faith, but I think he proceeded cautiously, and offered rationale for doing so).

For me, the real profit of this work came in Marsh's second to last chapter on "Passing the International Test." I found it incredibly moving and convicting to see how incredibly America-centric evangelicals in this nation have become. His argument culminates with the inclusion of five pages worth of statements from faith communities around the world standing in opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Brazil, International Movement of Catholic Students, the church of England, Germany, the conference of European Churches, Ghana, the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and all Africa . . . and on and on . . . groups, churches, brothers and sisters, who opposed the invasion. And yet, at the height of the invasion, the approval rating for going through with the invasion among evangelicals was an incredible 70 or 80 percent. How could they not consider these voices?

Whatever you think about the war, Marsh offers a challenge for you to see the actions of our nation (this war most specifically) through the eyes of the church of the world - something that I know is sorely missing in my church, in my personal faith, and every faith community I've ever been part of. I must realize that I have more in common with the persecuted believer in Djibouti, than I do with my neighbor who votes the way that I do and who likes the same sports teams. That is an important first step forward in our discussions of faith and politics.

Reflections from The Blue Parakeet

I have kicked off my New Year's reading with Scot McKnight's very interesting book on biblical interpretation: The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking how you read the Bible. The book is built around the metaphor of McKnight seeing a blue parakeet in their back yard at the bird feeder - an escapee pet blue parakeet. McKnight uses the concept of the parakeet to apply to teachings in the Bible that don't "fit."

He begins by asserting all of us are inconsistent in the way we read the Bible. I love the brass tacks approach he takes - direct, yet tactful and humorous. He uses several examples of the ways we are inconsistent with our applications - "We all pick and choose" how to apply the Bible, McKnight states. Whether it's the sabbath, tithing, foot washing, surrendering our possessions, or a host of other contentious issues (ie. abortion, war, homosexuality, etc.), we all pick and choose what we want the Bible to say. I didn't find this statement all that earth-shattering, but he dresses his argument in a palatable way that is difficult to argue.

He asserts our inconsistency, and then provides keys for moving forward in our interpretation of the Bible. Central to his proposal is that the Bible must be understood as fundamentally a story (narrative). Contrary to what many critics have accused, reading the Bible as story is actually more involved and complicated than other options. We have become lazy in our Bible reading. Think about how much more time consuming it is to consider the entire biblical story in framing a text as opposed to taking the text as a tidbit of teaching!

McKnight outlines the narratives in what he calls "wiki-stories" (Creating eikons, cracked eikons, covenant community, Christ (the perfect Eikon) redeems, consumation). He states: "The unity of the Bible is this story. It is this story that puts the Bible together. Our grand systems do not form the unity of the Bible; the story that God tells forms and frames that unity." p. 67. This unity and wiki-stories approach to Scripture is how I have learned to frame all of my teaching and preaching in recent years. It is, as McKnight states, much more complicated and involved, and takes deep committment to the stories.

Next, McKnight explores the relationship between the Christian and the Bible. He wants to clearly affirm that the Bible must not be equated to God. "God gave us this papered Bible to lead us to love his person. But the person and the paper are not the same." p. 87. The Bible is a means to an end . . . and too often we have made it the end. I think McKnight really helps to ground us and remind us what the chief end of the Bible's teaching is in the first place. "Our relationship to the GOd of the BIble is to listen to God so we can love him more deeply and love others more completely." (p. 96).

He brings this all to bear in our every day application of the Bible in the final section addressing interpretion entitled "Discernment." In this section he addresses the matter of consistency and knowing how to "apply" teaching and how to "disregard" teaching. He's not so interested in the specifics invovled at this point, but in the process we go through in determining this. I believe this is the most overlooked step in our churches today. We just right in to the "issues" (women's place, homosexuality, worship battles, ethical quandries, etc.) and we fail to realize that these issues are not the issue. The real issue is discernment. How do we do with the teachings that are there. McKnight goes on to address the matter of women in ministry and leadership for the last third of the book. I have seen some reviewers critical of the amount of time he spends on that issue, but I believe it provides a good case study and makes practical the matters he's laid out in the first sections of the book.

One of McKnight's main points throughout the book is that God has always communicated with people in their ways and in thier days. This requires great discernment and process in bridging the gap between their days and our days and their ways and our ways. I think the following statement is a good summary of what McKnight is working towards:

"What is good for Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Ezra, Jesus, Peter and Paul is also good for us. But, the precise expression of the gospel or the manner of living of Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Ezra, Jesus, Peter, and Paul may not b e our expression or our manner of lving. Living our the Bible means living out the Bible in our day in our way by discerning together God would have us live." p. 143.

For what it's worth, I think McKnight is right on in this book. He provides a way forward in a time when we are quickly nearing an impasse in our churches as our hermeneutics prove insufficient for today's cultural challenges and vicissitudes (I like to throw that word in there whenever I can - thanks to Mr. Johnson my high school American history teacher). What he states about women in ministry I believe will be pivotal for churches to understand. It is something that many churches wish to ignore arguing - that's just the way that it is. However, we must begin asking what God is communicating to us today in our way.

McKnight's thesis in this book reminds me of a more evangelical clothed approach that Luke Timothy Johnson sets forth in Scripture and Discernment (I don't think McKnight ever references the work), and Johnson uses as his case study the more difficult issue, for many Christians, of homosexuality. Discernment is not easy and diversity is difficult, however, I hope that Christians will only become more willing to listen to one another and understand one another instead of demonizing and hating one another. The Emergent Village has gone a long way in increasing everyone's presence at the theological table. As the table becomes larger, those sitting there now will be faced with difficult choices and interesting discussions will abound. I believe we are on the cusp of a revival . . . but it will be a revival that looks much differently than previous ones.

I will be beginning a series of posts next week that will be especially challenging for most to grasp. I am preparing a paper for a conference this summer, and in preparation for it, I will be reading several books on the matters of nationalism and the intersection of faith and politics. If you have read much here, you probably have sensed that I have a strong pacifist leaning towards political invovlement coming partly from my tradition (David Lipscomb, Lee Camp) and also some of the ideology I have been exposed to in recent years (Stanley Hauerwas, J.H. Yoder, et al.) This will be a particularly difficult discussion for many to participate in, and even for some to stomach the reading. I won't focus on this topic exclusively, but that will be a major focus of mine through the next several months. [As a side note, I missed the recent video from the Truth Project entitled "The American Project" and from all that I have heard about it, strikes fundamentally against what I will be affirming in my upcoming project. I find it extremely unfortunate that so many Christians have so easily bowed to the idol of nationalism.] I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt, that you will hear me out, and that you will allow the discernment process to take place, because much of what I will set forth will probably be new to many of your thinking. I hope you find it beneficial and will be prompted to pariticipation. I'll work on not being so verbose in these things . . . I just type . . . type . . . type my little heart out. That's enough. God bless you.

Ringing in the New Year

Now that the holidays are finally over, I have found a few minutes to update the old blog. Actually, I'm avoiding the long list of things I need to get after today in the office, but wanted to get things updated on here. I've had several thoughts of what to post here in the new year, but I figured I'll just offer a few random thoughts. The holiday foray lasts a little longer for the Metzes as we have managed to cram as many significant events in a short amount of time as possible: December 18 we celebrated our 9 year anniversary (even writing it now, doesn't seem possible), December 25 - duh, then the New Year (a.k.a. stay in pjs and watch football all day), and, just to get one more week's worth of planning and festivities in - Clark's birthday is Jan. 7 - Wednesday! So . . . next week EVERYTHING will finally be back to normal. Clark's going to be 4 - amazing.

I thought I might look back at last year and process some of the excitement that was 20o8. Major events seemed to occur on just about all counts:

In the family: there's no doubt our biggest event was finding out we'll be having our third little runt running around (due in about 7 weeks now). Mary Beth and I both felt as though one more baby would complete our family and God has once again been good to us with fertility and, so far, another relatively smooth pregnancy (easy for me to say!) Clementine had a run-in with a pretty nasty infection around her birthday last year that gave us a bit of a run - really our most serious health "crisis" to date - we ended up in urgent care. Other highlights were our trip to Cleveland for our fourth Opening Day event - probably our smoothest to date. Later, in May, we took Clark on the biggest surprise of his life when we watched the Indians get mauled by the Rangers, stayed the night in Cleveland, and then went to Day out with Thomas. (Thomas the Tank Engine rules at our house). I took Clark to his first "official" Ohio State football game (he went to two games when he was just a baby) at the Youngstown St. blowout - the big news of that game was Beanie Wells' injury.

On vacation: We had two great vacations last year. About a year ago we were anticipating our cheap flight down to Miami, FL - thanks to the now bankrupt Skybus airways. We sure are glad we got it when we did. We had a great week spent with our friends in Miami, at the beach, in the everglades, and then capped it off with three great days in Key West. It was a fantastic trip we'll always remember. Mary Beth and I took an early 10 year anniversary trip (a year early, but we're anticipating having trouble finding babysitters for 3 kids this year for our actual 10 years) in Maine. We stayed at a quiet bed and breakfast near Acadia National Park across the harbor from Bar Harbor. We had an amazing trip looking at some of the most incredible scenery I've ever seen. We even made an unexpected, but fortunate, trip to New Brunswick on Campbello Island - a really neat place I would highly recommend to anyone. It was a great week to get away with my wife.

On the job: We had a rather tumultuous year on the job - positive and negative tumults. The year started off with some major challenges as we had to fire my co-minister. He had just started working with us less than a year previous and the situation was never positive. He had misrepresented himself and reaped what he had sown. It was a learning experience for our congregation, our eldership, and, most especially for me. I admired our elders leading us through an especially difficult time and believe that we will be better for having lived through it in the end. However, enduring the process has no doubt tested the patience and faith of our members. Once some time had passed, and after extensive talks with our elders, my role changed a bit in October and we have brought on one of our members in part-time capacity to work alongside me. My title is now Family Life Minister, and while I maintain my focus on teenagers, I also now have an expanded role working alongside my co-minister planning our Sunday events, establishing a leadership framework, and doing whatever else comes along. The situation is a bit of a stretch for some, and I am doing my best to learn as we go each day.

A more exciting reality for our professional lives has been Mary Beth's venture as director of the new Alum Creek Preschool. Her hard year's work has paid off, and the preschool opened in September. It is a part-time program with three teachers and enrollment now around 30 children. The school meets on Mondays - Thursdays from 9:00 - 12:00. It has made our roll at the church even more complex as we now serve as preschool director, preschool parents (Clark is in the 3 year old class), preschool-church liason, and countless other roles.

On a personal level: I hope that 2008 was a year that I have become a better dad, husband, and friend. Those are truly immeasureable roles, and undoubtedly I have grown in areas - and shrank in others! The role as dad becomes increasingly more complicated by the day. Having a third child to be responsible for this year scares me even more! Finding time to be a husband through all of this is even more of a challenge. Through the year, my relationship with Mary Beth is more challenged than anything. We have to work so hard to see each other, and talk, and maintain and actual relationship - being married to the best woman in the world helps me out there alot!

I set personal goals to read more books and I have found time to do that (not having a newborn helped there alot! - we'll see that lag again this year). I also hoped to blog more regularly and I have found 2008 to be better served there as well. I have in the back of my mind plans to work towards my D. Min. degree, but time and finances continue to be an issue. I continue to be interested in Fuller Seminary, but have accepted that to be a far-reaching plan.

I have also continued to work towards becoming a better minister, professionally. Having our children with us, and with the preschool opening, I have Clementine by myself in the mornings, has tested my efforts of time management and organization. I press on and hope to improve in those areas this year. THere is a great need for improvement there. I have maintained relationships with only friend I've met through benevolence at the church this year - he was the first to call me on Christmas morning - and I'd really like to see that area of my life improve as well. I joined the Family Promise board in Delaware looking to open homeless beds in Delaware County - which will be a tenable effort.

The political scene of 2008 has gone a great dinstance in solifiying my pacifist positions. I got a bit sucked into the political season and it led to a time of reconsidering. One of my elders offered me a book that has challenged some of those presuppositions and has helped me think through some of the more challenging aspects of my opinions (thanks, Curt), and it has helped confirm to me much of that perspective. Academically, I feel as though I have grown in that area as much as any. Shane Claiborne & Chris Haw's book Jesus for President helped lead me in that area a great deal. I was most challenged in 2008 by my reading of Miroslav Volf's The End of Memory and have found a new theological mentor. I began Exclusion and Embrace, but will have to eat some more Wheaties and try again this year to really delve into it. The End of Memory really challenged the intersection of practice and theory in dealing with enemies for me. It was just great!

Spiritually, 2008 was a very challenging year. While I found renewed vigor in my academic pursuits, prayerfully and biblically, I continue to wrestle to find peace and quiet and solitude. I feel as though I have had four challenging years re-inventing this all-encompassing area of my life since Clark was born. I do not believe that spirituality is a part of life, but the whole of it, however, part of that spiritual life is maintaining the spiritual disciplines in rooting my faith - and that, frankly, continues to be a struggle. Prayer, especially, is a constant challenge. I continue to recover from the truncated prayer-life I was taught growing up, and the total absence of a family prayer life. Without that example and experience to pull from - leading my own family in that is especially a challenge. Following a friends suggestion, we have recently begun reciting both the Shema and the Lord's Prayer with our children before bed each night. That renewed emphasis has been a breath of fresh air that I hope will spill into my own spiritual fervor. My passion and desire for Scripture is higher than it's been in awhile. I hope in 2009 to find more time to sit and meditate as the Psalmist of the 119 Psalm does. I continue to look for his incredible desire for the Word in my own life. I prayerfully and humbly move on knowing the incredible need for growth in this area.

Well . . . if you've hung on this long reading this post, you've probably seen more about me than you've ever wanted to. A few words on the blog. I again hope to give the Supermetz blog added attention and time as the year procedes. I foresee a major facelift as I glance through some of the new tools available. It has been a neat tool to meet some new people - a few of you I've know for a long time and I appreciate you stopping by regularly to check out the thoughts here. Those of you who are new, I also appreciate whatever common cord I've seem to struck with you. I have added the feature in recent months to better track who visits here and how often they stop by and how they got here, and all that (the series of the Truth Project has added some additional traffic to be sure - I will probably be seeing the final three videos beginning next week, so I'll try to post on those).
I'd also like to see the blog become more dialogue-driven, but I understand the extra time that takes for everyone, so we'll just see what happens. I remain committed to commenting here regularly, as it proves to be theratpeutic for me . . . this post has especially prepared me for the New Year of excitement that awaits. Godspeed to everyone, and may this year be a year of blessings to all!

Time to Blog

Hey, finally I have a moment to update the ole blog. There are lots of things to comment on, but hopefully I won't ramble on too long. Here's a synopsis of the previous few weeks:

* Vermont was absolutely wonderful. It served both of our spirits well to get away for awhile and be refreshed. The scenery was gorgeous, the time together was renewing, the time away from Clark was quiet. It was good to get back to see Clark, but we already miss being away.
* Clark faired well at his first trip away from both of us. From the sounds of it, he hardly skipped a beat. When we met back up he was definitely happy to see us.
* Christmas was nice as well. Mary Beth and I cooked Christmas dinner for my family on Christmas Day. We had a nice time. I got a chainsaw so I can actually cut up the huge limbs that have fallen down over the past year. Mary Beth got some nice additions to the house - a trunk and table. Lots of other stuff - our families always spend way too much. Next year we may give money to Habitat or somebody instead - I'll have to pass that along to the rest of the family. My grandpa got Clark a wagon (see photo blog). He also got lots of other stuff.
*Our trip to Tennessee was nice too. The weather may have been the best part. Great temperatures. Got lots of nice stuff from the Hastings too. We all spend too much money feeding the capitalistic ways of our forefathers. A few books from my sis-in-law were much appreciated. She got me a couple of good ones from my wish list: The Spiritual Formation Bible (I am much hyped about this score), the second two books from McLaren's trilogy, and J.H. Yoder's The Politics of Jesus. Very nice. Also came away with some dinero to Lowe's to begin my next home improvement project - the upstairs bathroom. I'll keep you posted there. Clark got lots and lots of toys (thanks family for the noisy ones).
* Clark will be one on Saturday. It's an obligation of the cliche gods for me to say it so I'll post it here, "It's hard to believe he's already a year old." I believe it. Seems like seven years ago he was born. We got to celebrate his birthday in Tennessee while we were there. Granny baked him his first birthday cake. A few of my family folks are coming up Saturday for his first birthday. So soon after the holidays he might as well get used to an anti-climactic birthday.
* Monday watched the Buckeyes whoop up on Notre Dame. That was lots of fun. They had a great team this year and even though I know some folks who get freaked out they lost two games, they had a great team - and probably graduated one of the best class of seniors to come out of one school in awhile. A.J. Hawk is a stud. Could he be a Brown next year? That would be sweet. The Bucks should be pretty good next year. College football season ends tonight with the most over-hyped game ever. It will probably be another blow out and forever ruin the hype of hyped football games.
* Finally got back at the job this week. People who think ministers have it easy should sit in my shoes for a couple of weeks. Man, take a few weeks off and I get slammed. We've got a leadership retreat coming up, Super Bowl Party, Winterfest, basketball games, lunches, dinners, small groups, classses . . . pretty much none of it is ready to go. I'll be putting some nice office time in for the near future.

On the book front I have had alot of time to think and reflect over the past few weeks. I continue to have a desire to deepen my thinking in theological realms. I have been encouraged with the gift of my new Bible to get more in the biblical text . . . something I have admittedly slacked off on lately. I have become better about reading books, but The Book for some reason has been put aside. The Spiritual Formation Bible has given me new energy to study and read from. I finished the Donald Miller book and thoroughly enjoyed it. I picked up another short book from another Miller, Mark Miller on what he calls "experiential storytelling." I will review soon. He has an interesting take on reimagining what the sermon should look like. Much of what he says I have already incorporated into my preaching. I am just now getting into the practical section of the book. I am interested to see what he has to say.

With Clark a little older now I am hoping to get more reading done in '06. I think I am going to change my approach to my esoteric blogging rants too. Instead of relying so heavily on book reflections, I hope to be more proactive in putting forth some of my own thoughts and see what imput those out there have on them. We'll see how things proceed this year. I will try to post twice a week, though once a week is probably more realistic. Sunday evenings usually find me in the world of blogging.

One final thought. Tonight is the big USC - Texas game. As an avid college football fan I feel obligated to offer my predictions. While I would much rather see Texas win and have been trying to convince myself that Texas is the better team, the truth is, USC will probably take it to them convincingly. While I don't believe either team could have gone through the Big Ten, SEC, or ACC undefeated this year, when you have a month to prepare for one team, it makes a huge difference. I can't see USC losing. How about a 20-14 half time lead for Texas, with USC pulling away at the end 37-23? That's my take on it. I can't be any "wronger" than the many people who get paid a ton of money to make their predictions. Enjoy the game!