There’s a movement in churches today, primarily in the UK and the States, called the Emerging Church, or the Emergent Church movement. (Sometimes those phrases seem to mean different things. Sometimes they’re used interchangeably.) I’ve heard the term Emerging thrown around since about 2000, but when I’d ask people what it meant, I’d get such mushy replies that I was often left more confused and unsatisfied that I was before. So I recently decided to delve a little deeper. I asked even more people (and sometimes the same people over again) what the movement was all about. After getting yet another set of wiggly mush out of them, I decided that I was just going to have to get serious about this. It was time to turn to the monolith of all worldly knowledge, Wikipedia. I looked up the entry there and.... Well, I’ve come across useless Wikipedia entries before, but usually it’s because there’s no content, not because there’s a copious amount of content that says nothing. The entry on the Emerging Church takes the cake for being one of the worst Wikipedia entries of all time. (I considered adding my own 2 cents to the page, but I’m not the kind of person that likes to swim in verbal Jell-o.) So in desperation, I finally turned to Amazon, where I found two books that I hoped would help me finally get the answers I craved: The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations, by Dan Kimball and Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck.

I read Kimball’s book first and found it to be very helpful, very straight forward, and really interesting. Kimball explained not only what the Emerging Movement is, but how it started, what it’s in response to, and how it (sorta) looks. His book is written in an Emerging style (conversational) with quotes from other Emergent authors along the sides as they respond to Kiimball’s thoughts. By the end of the book I felt like I had this Emergent thing pretty well nailed down in my mind.

Unfortunately, reading the second book I had ordered, Why We’re Not Emergent, made me realize that Kimball’s take on the Emergent Movement is not definitive. Though he is really clear on how he sees the movement, his view is really only one of many, many, many. I suppose a parallel would be for someone who sees in only black and white to ask about colors. Someone could explain red to them in great detail until they feel like they really “get” colors for the first time ever. But then a second person comes up and says, “Oh, that’s just one color. Let me tell you about aquamarine.” And as more and more people come up to tell about another color, the completely color blind person starts to feel like there’s really no way to pin down what color is when there’s so many different variants of color. Rather than focus on the variations, though, I’d like to specifically focus on Kimball’s color/variant of Emerging. Even if there are too many colors to know them all, I still think there’s value in zero-ing in on one or two.

Connections, Explanations, and Elucidations

Dan Kimball believes there is a new culture emerging. As he explains it, there are four main worldviews that describe all of known history: 1) The worldview of the ancients was one in which authority was vested in kings, prophets and oracles, information was passed along orally, and mankind was inconsequential in a world of competing deities. 2) The medieval worldview, on the other hand, held that the church was the center of authority. Communication was both oral and written. And belief was paramount. 3) The modern world (which Kimball places as the time between 1500 - 2000) put authority firmly into the realm of science and reason. The introduction of the printing press put knowledge (and therefore power) into the hands of the people for the first time. 4) But now, Kimball believes, we're moving into a postmodern era. There is a strong distrust of authority, even science and reason are no longer supreme as conflicting truths and beliefs become not only the norm, but commonly accepted. The internet has accelerated communication and opened it up on a global level. People find power no longer in kings or the church or even science and reason, but in their own personal experiences.

Kimball splits his book into two main segments: deconstructing the modern church and reconstructing it as the postmodern church. The first half of the book delves into the why's of the Emergent church movement. He points out over and over again that the church is no longer speaking to culture that is primarily "Christian" in nature. There is no cultural agreement that the Bible is a basis of truth. Rather, the emergent culture is largely not only unchurched, but has quite possibly never stepped foot inside a church. The common spiritual understanding of yore (where at least people agreed on the meanings of terms and the importance of God) are gone, replaced by a secular culture where spiritual terms can mean very different things to different people. Kimball believes that this emerging culture is still very spiritual, but that it is pluralistic and though people might feel a strong affinity toward Jesus, there's a strong hatred against Christians and Christianity.

Because of this emerging, postmodern population, Kimball believes there needs to be an entirely different approach to worship and evangelism. Rather than tightly scripted services, little congregational participation and sermons with fill-in-the-blank outline notes, Kimball believes the church needs to move toward more experiential services with the entire congregation involved in the service. Sermons should be personal, should incorporate visual elements, and should encourage people to not just study the Bible, but to struggle with it -- examining it at a personal, as well as cognitive, level.

Reactions, Virtual Stained Glass and Candles

Though Kimball's book is divided into deconstruction and reconstruction, there's an overall feeling to the book that the whole thing is really, at it's core, a reaction. The American church is a varied conglomeration of denominations, movements, styles, formats and beliefs (I assume the UK has a similar variety) and yet Kimball seems to be reacting to "the modern church" as if it's one well-defined institution, embodied most particularly in the seeker-sensitive movement. Because of this, I think his descriptions and alternative solutions seem much more black and white than they are in reality. This makes for some ironic criticisms and suggestions on his part.

Kimball believes the emergent generation seeks "vintage Christianity." They want a sense that what they're partaking in is connected to the ancient and spiritual world and traditions of yore. They don't want the dry, hollow spirituality of their parents' generation, but the mysterious, mystical, and counter-cultural spirituality of the early Christians. So how do you go about creating a service that meets that need? You hang up black sheets around the room, you light some candles, you fill the room with crosses and then you project images of stained class windows on the over-head projector. Kimball repeatedly used the term "props" for many of these things, which certainly doesn't fill me with a sense of authenticity and harkening back to days of yore (when churches were dark because they were big and made out of stone and used candles not so much to create a sense of mystery as to try to dispel a bit of that darkness).

Kimball took a group of non-Christians to a seeker-sensitive mega-church service and later asked their opinions on the service. Their reactions were unanimously negative, citing that the church had a corporate feel, was too well lit, and felt performance focused. Kimball then uses this negative image of the modern church to explain that the Emergent church should be the polar opposite in each of those areas. As a member of a church that has less than 40 members, has no bookstore, no coffee shop, and certainly no well packaged, pre-scripted performance feel, I found this black and white comparison to be less than helpful. It's one thing to call churches to be more Biblical, but Kimball seems to have gotten stuck on simply calling churches to be less seeker-sensitive modeled. And some of his suggestions were overly simplistic and seemed to miss his own point entirely: If the goal is to seek a more authentic form of worship, then why the heck are we focusing on the lighting? Why do we have a bookstore or coffee shop at all?!!

The intersection of worship and personality type -- and how Kimball seems to have missed that

The Emergent Church has named itself based on a perception that the western world is going through a paradigm shift. They believe that though not everyone has bought into this new mode of thinking, there is an emerging group of people (that began emerging in the early 1900's and is increasingly prevalent today) who do not connect with God, nor spirituality in general, in the same way as generations past. Because of this, the church needs to shift it's thinking and it's methods to better meet this emerging generation. Emergents believe that this emerging, postmodern culture will grow until it is the dominant culture (in the UK and US at least).

Though I agree that unchurched, or postchurched, populations are expanding in Europe and the US (in other words, we're in a postChristian era), I don't think that necessarily means that the church will only reach this population if they're dimming the lights, lighting candles and projecting images of stained glass windows. I do agree with Kimball that we need to encourage people not just to accept the Scriptures, but to wrestle with them. We need to be honest about our own struggles and we need to be authentic in our lives and witness. I don't think any of these things are necessary because we face an emerging generation. Rather, I think they're necessary because they're marks of integrity and honesty and are therefore Biblical.

I do believe that there are people who feel more deeply connected to God and their own spirituality when they are surrounded by candles, incense, sacred images, etc. However, I don't think this type of person is necessarily emergent. Rather, they're more likely ESFJs who, by personality type, prefer to connect with all of their senses or either ENTPs or ENFPs who, though not drawn to experiential connecting when they're younger, find it to be rewarding and helpful as they mature. In the same way, I think Kimball is not reacting so much against seeker sensitive churches in particular, but against ISTJs especially, as well as ISFJs and ESTJs a little more generally, all of whom prefer structure, linear thinking, and even fill-in-the-blank sermon notes. They also tend to be the personality types that you'd find in what we think of as "traditional" or "stodgy" churches.

So What?

So whether you would consider yourself to be Emergent or not, I think is still a good book for Christians to read. Kimball brings up several points that we often don't address because we've simply grown used to the status quo. ("What are visitors' first impressions when they attend a Sunday service?" for example. Or "Are we encouraging people to grapple with Scripture or are we encouraging them to accept beliefs without questioning them?") Any Christian church, whether Emergent or not, would do well to take times out for re-evaluation and re-focusing.

On the other hand, to the extent that Kimball encourages churches to make changes that will draw in the "Emergent generation" I think he's misguided. His suggestions may help to bring in artists, bohemians, and urbanites, but the world has always had such folk and it always will. At the same time, it will always have people who prefer tradition, familiarity, and staidness as well, and those people need to be reached with the gospel just as much as the trendy folk do.

It's cool to be Emergent these days (whatever Emergent means), but the Emerging population is just a subset of the world's total population. The unchurched come in every personality type and connect with spirituality in many different ways. We need to meet people where they're at. If churches were all to start seeking only after this emergent sub-group, that would leave most of the world unreached. We do need to reach the artsy, fartsy cool folks. I'm not saying we shouldn't. But we need to reach the boring, the traditional and the lovers of fill-in-the-blank lectures as well.

In Thomas Cahill’s second book in his Hinges in History series, The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels, Cahill explores the foundations of linear thought and progress.

During the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (the Patriarchs of Judaism), people believed that life was cyclical. Heroes, such as Gilgamesh, Enkidu and Ut-napishtim (who’s name I find ever so fun to say), would arise, seek to right the wrongs among their people, rile up the gods (who’s petty squabbles were also cyclical), and eventually die and the cycle would start up again. Because life was cyclical, rulers were often described in terms of these older stories since it was believed that they were simply living out those ancient stories again.

But beginning with Abraham, a subset of Semites started changing the way they thought. As their stories were passed down and eventually recorded in the books of the Old Testament, it becomes clear that these stories are not just repeats of earlier stories (though there are definitely common themes that pervade them all and even very strong similarities between these stories and those of the regional heroes such as Ut-napishtim) but that the heroes were different people (with differing personalities) who were accomplishing different tasks. For example, though Abraham, Moses and Elijah were all huge figures in the stories of the ancient Israelites, the personalities of these men, and their modus operandi, are distinctly different from each other. (Unlike a hero who might be back for round 2 or 3 or 4. A cyclic hero might come with a different name, but he’d have essentially the same personality and the same way of looking at the world and dealing with it.)

Not only that, but these heroes were accomplishing tasks for the sake of one God (that right there was a huge paradigm shift from the surrounding peoples) whom they had a relationship with. Abraham heard the voice of God and followed it. Moses saw God face to face. And Elijah spoke the words of God. This was in stark contrast to the relationships of other ancient Middle Eastern heroes who were subject to the caprice and whim of their gods, who were often used and abused by them, and who, in the end, lived or died without their gods batting so much as an eyelash. The Hebrew God was powerful, constant, and involved in the lives of his people. The neighboring gods were petty, squabbled among themselves, and used their people as pawns towards their own ends in their arguments with one another without caring so much how that affected the people.

Cahill follows the story of this Semitic tribe from Abraham straight on through to the time of the Babylonian exile in which 10 of the 12 tribes become lost as they’re intermixed with the other peoples of the Babylonian captivity. Only those in Judea, the Jews, survive as a distinct entity and go one to pass these stories down to us today. But these stories, later picked up by the Christians, and through them disseminated to much of the world, begin to undergird our way of thinking. Western thought and philosophy became predicated upon one God who controls and shapes history, who uses individuals to achieve his purposes, and who has one over arching purpose for the world -- a purpose that he started upon in the beginning and will finish in the end. In other words, his overarching purpose is linear. Future leads to progress.

I believe that this book, as well as Cahill’s previous book on the Irish -- How the Irish Saved Civilization -- is a thoughtful overview of a people group during a specific period of time. Much of what Cahill says about the early Semites and the surrounding peoples jives with the information I learned in Gary A. Rendsburg’s Class on Genesis, which I finished about a year ago. (I highly recommend the class, btw.)

But, to be honest, I didn’t enjoy this book quite as much as I had enjoyed the first one. I think this might be in part because I’d already studied this topic in greater detail both by reading through the Old Testament on my own several times and by taking Rendsburg’s class. So I didn’t experience the “Wow! I hadn’t put those things together like that before”s that I had while reading the book on the Irish. I also think this book had fewer juicy little side tidbits than the first book. There were fewer footnotes (which contained some of the tastiest tidbits in the Irish book), no maps, only one photograph and only one chart. Cahill seemed to focus more on the grand scheme than on the small details. And that’s fine, unless you’re expecting those small details after having read book one.

Though the book is a tad bit of a let down after the first book, I’d still recommend it, especially if you haven’t read through the Old Testament or recently taken a class on Genesis. There is a rather risque sex/worship scene depicted so be aware of that and plan to skip over it if you’d find that upsetting. Skipping it won’t injure your understanding of the book at all, in my opinion. And if you’re a Christian or strict Jew reading this book, you may take umbrage at the fact that Cahill’s view, though sympathetic to the religious views of Jews and Christians, is really rather secular. But despite the secular approach, Cahill still brings pieces of the Jewish story together in a way that is enlightening and helpful, whether you believe in the God of the Jews or not.

The creation, including the earth, is not to be well treated because it is sacred or because it should be worshiped, but because God made it and called it good (Genesis 1), and its goodness is independent of human utility.
-- Redeeming Creation

Caring for the environment is a moral issue. How we interact with the world around us, not just with other people but with the stuff of the earth, is not a matter of right, but of responsibility. That, at least, is the premise of the book Redeeming Creation, coauthored by Fred Van Dyke, David C. Mahan, Joseph K. Sheldon, and Raymond H. Brand. The authors believe that without a solid ethical foundation underpinning our behaviors, as well as the policies put in place to police these behaviors, we'll find that we're talking one way and walking another. The book explores various ethical foundations that have been proposed to support environmentalism, then proceeds to test those foundations as well as the logical end points that they lead to. They conclude that the only solid ethical construct is one which includes God as creator, sustainer, and redeemer.

Ethics -- do we Value ecology?

In order to treat the environment as though it has value, one must first believe that it does. What gives it value is at the heart of any environmental ethic.

To get to the root of this issue, the authors drive all the way back to creation. They explore several ancient creation stories, focusing primarily on those of the Near East. They tease out the distinctions between the stories of the Babylonians, Mesopotamians, Greeks, and Hebrews and distinguish the purposes presented in each story for the creation of both Earth and those that live upon her sphere. They also address the more modern creation story of evolution as well as touch upon other spiritual attributions of value (such as those arising from pantheism and pan-psychism).

In the end they determine that many modern day valuation systems put mankind as the determining instrument of measurement, to which they conclude, “The making of humanity into the measure of all use and value must, in the end, be accompanied by a blatant disregard for nonhuman life.” They flesh this out with examples of policy and practice in the National Parks of the United States, showing that what sounds like a reasonable environmental practice at the outset often ends up doing more harm than good.

Theology -- where's God on ecology?

Believing that a Biblical view of God is at the heart of a sound ethic regarding ecology, the authors proceed to flesh out the theology that underpins that ethic. Much of what they have to say carries a distinct flavor of Schaefferian thought (as outlined in Francis Schaeffer's book, Pollution and the Death of Man). The authors neatly and clearly flesh out several ideas that Schaeffer comparatively only glanced across: God is transcendent, God has called all creation "good" (thereby giving it value), humans are inseparably linked to creation, mankind is fallen (and this affects creation), and God has made a covenant of redemption not only with mankind but with all of creation.

Though many ancient creation stories tell of gods who fashioned the earth out of the stuff around them (or in some cases, out of the flesh of other gods), only the Hebrew God created the world out of nothing that had existed before. He remains separate from creation (transcendent), and creation gains value not because it is made of the flesh of god, but because God said it was "good." God ascribed value to creation. God said each part was good.

[As an aside, I'd like to point out that this is critically important theology in terms of getting Christians to think positively about the environment. Many Christians that poo poo environmentalists as a bunch of hippie tree-huggers have an underlying belief that caring for the environment means ascribing value to created things because they have inherent value. In other words, they fear that being an environmentalist means assenting to the belief that plants and animals (etc) have value because they contain spirits themselves (animism) or because they are a part of a greater being (pan-psychism - the Universe is sentient) or because they are spirits in their own right (pantheism). Many Christians refrain from addressing the issue of the environment entirely because they are fearful that these non-Christian belief systems are the only reasons one would care for the environment. Reminding them that God is distinct from creation, but has ascribed value to it, is an essential piece in helping Christians (especially older Christians who lived through the "hippie era") see that environmentalism is a God issue and not a domain reserved only for hippies and tree huggers.]

When God made people, he made them from the stuff of the earth, from the dust of the ground. Humans are inseparably linked to creation, not just because they are created beings along with the rest of creation, but because they were fashioned out of the very earth itself. [Again, notice that not even humans were made from the stuff of God, but the stuff of earth. Even humans don't have inherent value, but rather their value comes from God who said they were "good."]

But, according to the Biblical record, mankind fell; they sinned against God. Because of this, not only mankind has suffered, but all of creation as well. There's an interesting passage in Isaiah that reads, "The earth lies polluted under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt." (Isaiah 24)

But God has brought about a new covenant, one that not only brings healing to humans, but to the earth as well. God is redemptive and though the Bible is very clear about the redemption brought to mankind, it is also clear that, "God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross." (Colossians 1) And, the authors point out, God has called his people, who he has redeemed, to be agents of redemption themselves, not only to other people but to all of creation. As stewards of God's creation, they are not to abuse the land and its inhabitants, but as Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, exemplifying for them a servant leadership, so too are God's people to be servants of God's creation, caring for it as stewards for its true owner.

Response -- individual and corporate responses to ecological problems

In order to recommend a response to the environmental ills of our age, the authors first described the problems at issue. They organized these into three main categories: 1) population, 2) consumption vs. sustainability and 3) pollution and waste -- the second two being aggravated by the growth of the first. They explore the Biblical record, the historic record, and the evidence we can see today, all of which point toward mankind being behind many of the ills under which the earth currently groans. And we also suffer, along with the rest of creation, as a result of these ills. The consequences are ecological, medical, economic, cultural, and aesthetic.

From there they address what they believe are appropriate Christian responses at an individual level as well as from the corporate levels of families and churches. They even address a national response, specifically in terms of public policy and private-property law.

As individuals, we need to seek information in order to keep abreast of the issues. We should be interacting with nature in order to keep a personal relationship with it. And we should be willing to take sacrificial steps to deal with environmental issues. As families we can make decisions regarding heating, vacations, and transportation, among other things, that can make a corporate difference. Within churches we can be teaching a Biblical view of creation as well as using our buildings and yard space in a way that is both environmentally sound and physically appealing to neighbors.

At a national level, the authors believe the Forest Service is an important outward expression of public environmental policy. They list several problems within the service in recent years, and challenge forest service workers to put the needs of nature before chances for advancement (in cases when the two are in conflict). And some private-property laws need to be re-addressed, they say, as unfair negative burdens are placed upon the masses while positive monetary rewards are reserved for the private land owners. (A quick example is the rewards to the property owner of a gold mine and the negative affects to all those downriver as dangerous chemicals are dumped into a city’s water supply as a result.)

Redeeming Creation

The authors are firm, clear, and concrete in their arguments. They're honest about some of the abject failures that the church has perpetrated upon the environment, but they are of great hope that only a sound Biblical ethic can address the environmental problems that humanity faces in this day and age.

I was impressed with both the breadth and depth of this book as well as by the rock solid belief these authors hold that a proper Christian ethic towards the environment is the only hope for true restorative change on earth. I've read several books now regarding Christianity and the environment and I’d say that a common theme among them is that the Bible does indeed have something to say on the issue of caring for the earth. But Redeeming Creation goes further. Not only does the Bible have something to say, but God’s plan, as laid forth in the Bible, has never been for mankind only, but has always included all of his creation, from “In the beginning,” to “It is finished.”

Christians, of all people, should not be the destroyers.
We should treat nature with an overwhelming respect. -- Francis Schaeffer

In 1967, two defining articles came out on our modern ecological crisis. The first one, by Lynn White, Jr., laid the blame squarely upon Christian attitudes of dominance over nature. The second, by Richard L. Means, came out 6 months later and not only reiterated White’s idea that Christianity was at fault, but took it a step further in advocating that because the root of the problem was moral, even religious, then the answer should likewise be moral and religious. Means believed that the hippies of the 60’s were on the right track in turning to Zen Buddhism because such a religious shift would lead also to a shift in cultural beliefs concerning the relationship between mankind and nature.

In 1970, Francis Schaeffer took on both White and Means in his book, Pollution and the Death of Man. He argued that though Christians had done a rather cruddy job of caring for the environment, he believed their actions reflected neither the Biblical mandate for mankind to care for the earth nor the Reformation theology that states that God’s redemption begins in the here and now. His book, therefore, not only responds to White and Means, but calls Christians to a more Biblical view of nature as well.

Schaefer's Response to White, Means, and Platonic Christianity

Schaeffer’s first two chapters are in direct response to the articles by White and Means. (Both articles are included in appendices at the end of the book. I’d recommend reading them first before starting in on Schaeffer’s response.) He walks through the articles, almost point by point, giving background on the sources that were used as well as agreeing that there is, indeed, an ecological crisis and religious beliefs do have bearing upon how we relate to nature. But he disagrees that Christianity is the root of the problem and that Buddhism (or Pantheism, as Schaeffer prefers to focus on) is the best solution.

Before getting into what Schaeffer believes is the proper Biblical response to nature in his last three chapters, he addresses the response of what he calls the wrong kind of Christianity. “Much evangelical Christianity,” he says, “is rooted in a Platonic concept,” and this Platonic concept, “does not have an answer to nature.” (This Platonic attitude can be seen in the documentary Jesus Camp when a homeschooling family poo poo's global warming. It is also a concept often maintained by many fundamentalist denominations.) Platonist Christianity spiritualizes nature; in other words, a tree has value in that it reflects God's creative nature, God's beauty or perhaps other things about God. The tree, however, doesn't have any value in it's own right, except to be used up for the benefit of mankind.

A Biblical View of Christianity and Ecology

So what is the "right" kind of Christianity? Schaeffer believes that it all begins with creation. Mankind was created in the image of God, which sets it apart from the rest of creation. But it was also created as a part of creation. Mankind is just as much created as animals and plants. We are, in his words, "equal in origin." We therefore share a unity with the rest of creation. Creation also has value, not because it contains a spirit of it's own (animism) or a bit of the spirit of God (pantheism), but because God made it and said, "this is good." God gave creation value and therefore it is valuable.

God has redeemed not only fallen sinners, but creation as well. This is not only Biblical, Schaeffer posits, but Reformed as well. As the reformers wrestled with concepts such as justification and sanctification, they came to believe that salvation wasn't only something that occurred in the afterlife, but that God's saving powers affected us immediately, sanctifying (purifying) us. Healing was not just a hoped for future, but a substantial part of the Christian's life today. In the same way, Schaeffer believes that a substantial healing of the earth today (not just in the future) is Biblical and reformed.

When mankind was given dominion over creation, it was not to abuse it as we please, but to care for it as one would care for something that is not their own, but entrusted to them by another. The dominion of mankind over nature should be a healing and productive process, not a scarring and destructive one. And of all the people who should be caring for God's creation, Christians should be leading the way. Non-Christians should see in Christians not only a reflection of God's redemptive power in their own lives and in their relationships with others, but in their relationship with the Earth as well.

By not getting our theology right in terms of nature, Schaeffer says, Christians have missed not only "the opportunity to help man save his earth," but we have lost "an evangelistic opportunity" as well "because when modern people have a real sensitivity to nature, many of them turn to the pantheistic mentality" (which was reflected in the recent movie, Evan Almighty, when Evan read that "God is in all things" and therefore he should protect the environment).

Schaeffer Then and Now

Though Schaeffer originally wrote this book in 1970 (under the title A Christian Manifesto: Pollution and the Death of Man), the book was republished in 1992 as the environment was finally picked up as an issue for discussion among wider circles of Christians. I can only imagine how cutting edge this book might have been for the 1970's Christian. Though there are several books on the topic of Biblical environmentalism today, I have yet to find anything else from this same time period on the topic. Schaeffer was clearly pushing the envelope given the state of the church at the time.

That said, I think the average reader today will find this book a bit thin compared to some of the other texts that are now available on the subject. Present day authors often quote Schaeffer, but it is clear that their thinking has grown from the seeds that Schaeffer planted into much fuller and richer concepts. I suppose Schaeffer could be considered, therefore, to be the grandfather of the Christian environmental movement. (Of course, that would make Adam, Noah, and Moses, among others, the great great (etc.) grandfathers of the movement.)

Book Recommendations for This Topic and Where Schaeffer Fits In

Of the books on Christianity and the environment that I have read so far, I would recommend saving God's green earth by tri robinson to any Christian who is new to the study of Christianity and the environment. Robinson's book is chock full of scripture that supports a pro-environment stance for Christians. Unfortunately, when I recommended the book to our church leadership for use in a Sunday school class, they immediately rejected it because of a mention of a "doe with this deep penetrating gaze" which Robinson mentions on page 40. As best I can determine, the reference to the deer struck the leadership as somehow animistic or pantheistic and, despite the fact that that wasn't at all the intention of the author, the book was tossed.

Another book that I'd recommend for those who enjoy deep, meaty theological discussions is Redeeming Creation: The Biblical Basis for Environmental Stewardship. This book is one in which Schaeffer's seeds grew furiously into well thought out, deeply theological bases for environmental stewardship. The authors also do a fantastic job of hitting specific environmental topics, especially land management, without pulling any punches. (In fact, I would urge even non-Christian environmentalists to read the book for this very reason.) But, and I cringe when saying this, I know not to even bother recommending this book to the church leadership, because within the very first chapter the authors mention global warming, and in a church where many people believe global warming is fiction, not fact, I know the book won't get very far.

So in the end, I come back to Francis Schaeffer with great hope. Schaeffer didn't hit specific environmental topics very hard and I don't believe he ever mentioned global warming. He did refer to the Reformation and even used it as a basis of his environmental thinking, firmly eschewing pantheism and animism. So though I think Schaeffer is a bit "thin," at the moment it is the only book I've come across that I think our church might be able to hear. The hope I have is that Schaeffer will provide the foot in the door into this issue for our church.

If pressed to name the greatest contribution that the Irish have made to civilization, I suspect that Guinness, a beer first brewed in 1755 in the heart of Dublin by Arthur Guinness, might be the first thing to pop into many people's minds. Others might mention the Book of Kells, or perhaps more recent books by authors such as George Bernard Shaw, William Butler Yeats, Samuel Beckett, and Seamus Heaney. Anyone that brought up potatoes or corned beef, however, might be surprised to learn that potatoes are native to the Americas and corned beef became an Irish-American staple after immigrant Irish learned of the meat from their Jewish neighbors in New York City. But Thomas Cahill believes that the greatest contribution of the Irish, a hinge or turning point upon which all of civilization has swung, was the preservation of a wide range of Latin texts which might otherwise have been entirely lost when Rome fell, and upon which the Renaissance was founded. He explains how the Irish came to play such a pivotal role in history in his book How the Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Heroic Role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe.

To help the reader first understand exactly what otherwise might have been lost, Cahill devotes a couple of chapters to the fall of the Roman Empire and the traditions and culture that fell with it. His description of how the empire crumbled is brilliant in that it not only explains what happened then, but he compares it to present day phenomena that help the reader connect more viscerally with historic events. And throughout his description of the Romans are comparisons between them and the Celts of the same time period. But Ireland is the one place where the Celts were never subsumed into a larger, invading people group, and it's to these Celts in particular that he turns next.

The Irish were a bit of a wild bunch back in the days of the Roman Empire. (In fact, many would argue that they still are today. Cahill states that Freud once “muttered in exasperation that the Irish were the only people who could not be helped by psychoanalysis....”) Fierce in battle, the Irish were also ruthless in slave taking. Little did they realize that it was one of those slaves they had captured, a teenager by the name of Patricius (Saint Patrick), who would begin the movement of the hinge upon which all of Europe would turn. Though Cahill spills the beans in the very first page of the introduction, explaining just what it was that the Irish did to save civilization, it's the details of the story, which Cahill spends the rest of the book explaining, that make this such a rich and fascinating read.

Juicy tidbits such as the possible origins of the faeries, the tale of the world's first copyright case, and delightful quotes both by and about the Irish, add a delicious flavor to the story that Cahill tells. The nature and culture of the Irish is brought to life through histories, poems, and comparisons with their contemporaries. It wasn't just Patrick who pushed the hinge upon which the world turned, but the blending of the Irish culture with the religion that Patrick brought with him, as well as the Irish love of stories and learning. Though the Vikings first and the English later would make mince meat of Irish culture, pre-Viking Ireland enjoyed a hay day of growth, learning, and influence.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and would recommend it not only to those with Irish blood, but to all who enjoy a good story that weaves together what might at first appear to be a disparate set of facts in order to create one cohesive and compelling history.

Note to my non-Christian friends: Though this book probably won't interest you, the review might be worth the read. If there's a Christian in your life who is anti- or apathetic to environmental issues, this book might make an interesting (maybe even provocative) Christmas or birthday gift. ;-)


“We cannot be excused when we have not at all considered God in His works. He does not at all leave Himself without witness here. ... Let us then only open our eyes and we will have enough arguments for the grandeur of God, so that we may learn to honor Him as He deserves.” -- John Calvin

John Calvin, Martin Luther, Francis of Assisi, even Saint Paul believed that the natural world is a reflection of God’s own nature. In the first chapter of the book of Romans, Paul writes that “God’s invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature” can be “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.” In fact, Paul even suggests that perhaps nature is the greatest evangelist, allowing people who may never meet a missionary to see in nature a reflection of God, just as a mirror shows a reflection of a face -- imperfect, but very close to the original none-the-less.

One might think, therefore, that Christians would be at the forefront of conserving and protecting God’s creation. In fact, the second chapter of the book of Genesis says that “God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” One could make the argument that man was made with the purpose of caring for the rest of God’s creation. And certainly there are many Christians who have taken that call to heart. They ask questions such as “What Would Jesus Drive?” and they seek to “Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle.” But there are others who feel that environmentalism is either a distraction caused by Satan or a movement started by and for pantheistic earth worshipers (and therefore is something Christians should steer well clear of).

Tri Robinson hits the issue of Christianity and the environment head on. With quotes from many famous Christians (such as the one from John Calvin above) as well as large fistfuls of Scripture, Robinson walks the reader through five key reasons why a Christian should be an environmentalist:

1) God has provided the planet and all that is on it as a resource and provision for humanity. Proper management of this resource must be sustainable, keeping future generations in mind. The planet is a blessing. God made it to be a sanctuary for life and therefore it should be treated with consideration.

2) Nature is "a portrait of God's beauty." In fact, Robinson points out that "it's in nature that we oftentimes see not only the beauty but also experience the real presence of God." To damage this portrait that God has created of himself is to dishonor him and to endanger our own credibility in the eyes of humanity.

3) Caring for the environment can be a means of missions work. Many of those who are hardest hit by environmental degradation are "the least of these." Rather than receiving God's provision through his creation, they suffer without clean water and with ravaged soil -- the results of a misuse of the planet. By restoring the environment, Robinson says, we help to restore "the neglected assurance of God's abundant presence" as reflected in the provision of the earth.

4) Caring for the environment can be a means of evangelism. What environmentalist would take even a moment of their time to listen to the gospel from the lips of an SUV driving, pesticide spraying, disrespecter of God's creation? How much more readily might they be willing to listen when they see that a Christian's faith permeates every area of their life?

5) The renewal of God's creation is the last of a widening circle of renewal that God works in his creation, starting within the hearts of individuals and rippling out through our bodies, our homes, our communities, and the world.

Robinson intersperses each chapter of this book with examples of present day Christians who have felt called by God to take environmental concerns seriously. He understands that there are political and social pressures within the church that can be daunting, but he devotes an entire chapter to encourage the reader to heed God's call to care for the environment. (It's a powerful chapter, in fact, on having the courage to take the first step in obedience to any call which God has placed upon us, not just a call to care for the environment.) The final two chapters of the book provide practical guides for practical responses, first in terms of education and then in terms of taking action.

I have written several short essays on the topic of Christianity and the environment and therefore have given quite a bit of thought to the topic. I was pleased, however, as I read this book that though much of what Robinson wrote was old hat to me, there were also several points that he made and connections that he pieced together that were either new to me, or said in such a different way that they took on a beautiful new nuance. Robinson understands his audience well (He's a pastor of a church in Boise, Idaho.) and is gentle on his reader (who may feel a little panic-y when approaching this topic) and yet he doesn't hold back on his challenge to the reader to take seriously the care of God's creation.

In my opinion, however, this book, while a good place to orient yourself perhaps on *why* you should care for the environment, doesn't go very far into *how* you can care for the environment. Recycling is mentioned several times as well as reusing canvas grocery bags and getting involved in helping the National Forest service in projects. But there is little or no mention of sustainable farming practices, chemical pollutants or reducing our footprint. In terms of what one can *do* to change their lifestyle to make it more earth friendly, there simply isn't that much information. Then again, I don't believe that was the point of the book. As a springboard it's wonderful. As a guidebook from then on out, I'd recommend reading such books as Sidewalks in the Kingdom, Omnivore's Dilemma (review coming soon), or .... well, the list is enormous. (Feel free to add other good books in your reply.)

This book is an easy read and would be well suited to discussion groups. It is full of Scriptural references and may be appropriate therefore for a Sunday School class or Bible Study group.

I strongly recommend other Christians to read this book. If you're not a Christian, but know someone who is (and who isn't environmentally conscious) this might be a great book to hit them over the head with (or you could just get them a copy for Christmas).

Jesus Camp, a documentary by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, was originally begun with the intention of exploring the lives of kids who felt strongly about their faith. And the film does that. However, though that was the springboard idea, as the filmmakers edited their footage they ended up tweaking the content in such a way that strong political undertones came sharply into focus. In addition to that, I believe there are two others issues that hit the viewer head-on: the concept of indoctrinating children and the Pentecostal sub-culture itself, which to many people is quite alien, despite the fact that it’s a nationwide phenomena.

The film opens (and closes) with a radio voice-over regarding the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. This puts the documentary firmly into a political mind-frame before we even meet the subjects of the film. Though the rest of the movie was utterly captivating -- simultaneously beautiful, shocking and somewhat surreal -- the additions of the aforementioned radio voice-over; clips of Mike Papantonio, a radio talk-show host; and footage of Ted Haggard, a since deposed mega-church preacher; seemed out of place, structurally forced, and marred an already poignant storyline. Interviews with Ewing and Grady after the film came out indicate that this footage was included to add dimensionality to the film and to provide a sense of conflict, but I (as well as several other reviewers that I’ve read) believe that these additions did more to detract from the film than to improve it.

The main characters of this movie were altogether fascinating. The kids were eloquent as well as delightfully precocious and I always felt, whether I agreed with what they were saying or not, that Becky Fischer (the camp director) and the kids were being utterly authentic throughout the film. What they said and did came truly from their heart. (Ewing and Grady said in a question and answer session online that they tried to remove footage in which they felt like the kids were acting for the camera.) It’s this authenticity on the part of the main characters of the movie that, I feel, gives this documentary it’s compelling, heart-twisting flavor.

The filmmakers chose three kids to follow in this film: Levi, Rachael and Tory. They met them before going to summer camp, getting a sense of the world they were coming from (including homeschooling, interactions with their parents and visits to their home church). However the person that is perhaps most controversial in this movie is Becky Fischer, the director of the “Kids on Fire” summer camp that used to take place in Devil’s Lake, North Dakota. (The camp has been indefinitely canceled due to the number of threats that Becky and the camp have received since this film came out.) Fischer is very open about her goals with the camp as well as her means of getting her points across to the kids. It’s quite clear that the filmmakers never had to coax information out of her. Fischer has nothing to hide. She holds firmly to her beliefs and never compromises nor tries to shade the truth. She’s not at all ashamed of her beliefs.

(Soon after the film came out, Fischer included a link on her website encouraging people to see the movie. She felt like it was a testimony to the faith of the kids’ belief and worship of God. Since then, she’s changed that page to include an FAQ concerning the documentary, addressing several of the questions and criticisms that she’s received in the interim, and I no longer see any link to purchase the movie.)

The documentary covers the time that these four were at camp, alternating between incredibly moving scenes of emotional outpouring, rather severe teaching, and interviews with the kids and Fischer about their beliefs and their experiences at the camp. I’m not a pentecostal and I admit that I get rather uncomfortable around people who are being loudly and drippingly emotional, but I must say that the filming was beautifully done during these scenes with framing that made some of these images works of art (hence that somewhat surreal feeling I mentioned before -- like staring at a Kramer). Fischer’s teaching’s were what I would call ultra-conservative and covered such topics as sin and punishment as well as the rather political issues of abortion, praying for those in leadership (including the laying on of hands and praying for President Bush -- they laid their hands upon a life sized cardboard cutout of him), and Creationism. The interviews with the kids and Fischer helped to ground the film, adding a human element that could have become lost in the other footage of emotional ecstasy and political propagandizing. In fact, if there’s one thing that was hurt the most through the filmmakers slanting towards the political, it was the humanizing element and I’m sure those calling in threats must have missed it altogether.

At all times I felt that the four main characters came across transparently. You clearly get the sense that they fully trusted the filmmakers and were very comfortable pouring out their hearts to them. (I suspect that this level of trust makes the response the film has gotten all the more painful for those that were filmed. Though they may have trusted the filmmakers, the general public hasn’t looked at this film with the anthropological and artistic eye that Ewing and Grady did.)

With the number of threats that Fischer and the camp have received, and the number of reviewers that start off with the line, “This film is scary!”, obviously something about the movie gets under people’s skin. I think it’s one thing to come face-to-face (or face-to-film) with people who are different than one’s self. Not everyone reacts well to that. But when kids are involved, people become even more strongly reactive, making this film a powder-keg. Although it’s already exploded in some ways into threats of violence against the subjects of the movie, I would hope that many will use this film as a springboard for discussion, for interaction, and for understanding. No matter how strongly we disagree with another person's position, I don't feel that that ever gives us the right to demoralize or threaten them. Rather, I find that interacting with those whose beliefs are contrary to our own can show the strength (or paucity) of our own beliefs and thereby give us the chance to strengthen or change our positions. I also think that as we build relationships with those that are different from ourselves, we learn the value of respect, kindness and perhaps even the inherit fragility and interdependence of humankind.

I recently finished listening to a class on tape, by the Teaching Company, called A History of England from the Tudors to the Stuarts, by Professor Robert Bucholz. At the same time (I alternated back and forth), I listened to another class on tape called The Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Rise of Nations, by Professor Andrew C. Fix. I found that the latter class was a wonderful foil to the former in addition to being a fascinating study in its own right.

Comparing Professor Fix with Professor Bucholz, something I tended to do rather frequently as I flipped back and forth between classes, I finally decided was like comparing apples to oranges. Both are similar in the sense that they've very knowledgeable about their subjects, but where Professor Bucholz is vibrant and excited about his subject material (I could imagine him bouncing on his toes at times in his excitement.) Professor Fix is laid back, philosophical and cogitative. (I imagined him in an overstuffed easy chair puffing on a pipe and waxing eloquent on the governmental systems during the Renaissance period.)

I have to admit that coming into this class, what I was not ignorant of I was mostly likely biased about. Anything I may have learned of these time periods in school was probably lost to me soon after (if it was ever truly "found" in the first place). And the only bits and pieces I had studied since my school days had entirely to do with the Reformation and were of course colored by the fact that the books and people I learned from were Protestants painting a mostly rosy picture of the world, post Catholic domination.

As someone who is interested in the Reformation, I was really pleased to discover the depth of context that studying the Renaissance gave to the religious changes that would later take place. I also appreciated looking at the three time periods in the context of each other as it gave me a better sense of the medieval world pushing it's way up through its medieval-ness and out into the beginnings of our modern times.

Despite the fact that we might think of the Renaissance as a cultural movement, the Reformation as a religious movement and the Rise of Nations as a political movement, Professor Fix is careful to contend with the cultural, religious and political movements throughout all three of these time periods. And despite the fact that he is covering some rather ugly situations within Christiandom, he is careful to set his own preferences and beliefs aside and present, as much as possible, the facts as best we know them, without coloring them with judgementalism or disgust. (Granted, this is pretty hard to do when discussing incidents such as the Anabaptist take-over of Münster in which anyone who didn't convert was killed, in which communism was forced upon the people and in which polygamy was introduced. In the end, all of the Anabaptists were executed.)

This class, as you might imagine, spanned an incredible breadth of time and geography. There were many times when I wish I could have stopped the lecture and asked Professor Fix to go into more detail on one point or another. But as it was, this was a 48 part class (which, I believe, is the longest any of the Teaching Company classes run). So I must content myself with the thought that at least now I have a broad overview of the topics and have a better sense of what areas I'd like to take another class in.

Listening to the History of England class at the same time that I was listening to this was an excellent example of what I'm talking about. While getting a sense of the macro-situation Europe wide, I could then focus in on how that was playing out more specifically in the micro-situation of England. I'd love to go back and zoom in on France and perhaps Spain as well, now. And I'm still not sure I fully comprehend that which was called the Holy Roman Empire. It seems that it was neither Holy nor Roman, nor do I have any sense of where it came from and only a minor understanding of where it went.

But all of these classes will have to wait for awhile. Though I always buy my classes when they're on sale, the prices still add up and I have two more classes to finish (one on the popes and another entitled the "Lost Christianities") before I'll allow myself to purchase any more. (In the meantime, I avidly read through the Teaching Company catalogs which are full of excerpts from classes.)

Though I don't think that Professor Fix's speaking style is as engaging via cassette tape as Professor Bucholz's was, I'd still highly recommend this class for it's excellent overview of philosophies and movements that have helped to shape our modern world.

If you’re the kind of person who has considered going back to school “just for fun” then you’ll understand my excitement when I tell you about some fantastic classes I’ve taken lately while running errands and folding laundry. The Teaching Company invites highly recommended professors in various fields of study to develop a specific lecture series which is then made available on cassette tape, CD, video tape and DVD.

I recently finished listening to the series, The History of England from the Tudors to the Stuarts, by Professor Robert Bucholz. Despite the fact that history was my most despised subject in junior and senior high (with the exception of AP History my junior year), this class was riveting. Bucholz is an engaging speaker, including delightful asides that add flavor and texture to his narratives. He is clearly excited by his subject matter and thrilled to be sharing it with others.

Though this class concerns the Tudors and the Stuarts, Bucholz backs up to 1377 when Edward III dies and is succeeded by his grandson, Richard II. The fighting between the Lancastrians and Yorkists (which later came to be referred to as the War of the Roses) made for not only political turmoil during that time period but confusing listening for me as the student. I played some of these early tapes twice to make sure I understood what was going on. (Bucholz even apologizes for the confusion, although the real problem was that there were really too many Richards, Edwards and Henrys for the countries own good.)

Finally Henry VII gained the upper hand and the history of England settled into a time line that was a bit easier to follow (with the exception later on of a few too many Marys. Honestly, these people needed some fresh “What to name your baby” books. They had an utter lack of imagination when it came to naming their children.)

Bucholz, of course, covers some rather notable monarchs in this class, such as Henry VIII, Queen Mary I, and Elizabeth I. (I have to be honest, before this class, these three, along with perhaps, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II, were the only kings or queens that I had even a glimmer of knowledge about.) I think it’s safe to say that these three notables carry a lot of baggage with them. For example, who doesn’t think “Bloody Mary” upon hearing of Mary I or think of Henry VIII lopping of the head of one wife in order to go marry another? Yet I believe that Bucholz did a great job of rounding out these well knowns, delving into the motives behind their actions (Henry VIII was worried about not leaving a male successor. The thought of Mary or Elizabeth being left as the heirs to the throne haunted him.) as well as comparing the monarchs so that the actions of one could be seen more clearly in light of the actions of the others. (Elizabeth killed just as many Catholics as Mary had killed Protestants, but Elizabeth was the one that got to write the history books on Mary and she found it convenient to add the adjective “bloody” to her sister’s name.)

Likewise, I think Bucholz covered the ridiculous amount of religious turmoil quite evenly, neither ridiculing nor exalting any of the factions, but simply explaining where they were coming from, what their goals were, and how utterly unsettling all of this religious change and upheaval was for a people who had quite comfortably been, well, whatever the king or queen had been at the time. The civil war and the time of Cromwell led to an amount of religious freedom that, in the end, the country simply couldn't tolerate. Even those who had led some of the changes realized it was all too much. Yet, as easy as it would be to look rather contemptuously upon much of the religious proceedings during these times, I felt that Bucholz remained well above the fray, relating the events clearly without soaking them first in his own prejudiced spin.

I listened to this tape series during the Autumn of 2006 and visited England in January 2007. It was exciting for someone to mention Warrick castle and the first thing that would pop into my mind wasn't "What castle?" but "Ah! Warrick, the King Maker!" The places we visited on our trip had more meaning since I could relate to them with some sense of historical context that I simply wouldn't have had otherwise.

I listened to this class on cassette tape and it worked well in that format. But I suspect that I missed out on several portraits of kings, queens, and other notables that would have been nice to see. Each box of tapes comes with a booklet filled with outlines of the lectures, but unfortunately, pictures are not included.

In the back of each booklet is a bibliography with the books and other resources sorted into categories such as "Essential Reading" and "Supplementary Reading" as well as by time period or location.

Other resources that I discovered in my study of English history:

A rockin' time line of Britain by the BBC
A family tree of the British monarchs on wikipedia

This was an excellent class and I highly recommend it. Not only is the time period that is covered fascinating, but as Professor Bucholz points out in his closing lecture, many of the struggles that the English went through during this time led directly to the philosophies and values that led to the founding of the United States of America soon after. And Professor Bucholz's enthusiasm for his subject matter is infectious. He's a delightful orator and I must confess that his fervor in his closing remarks were almost enough to make me climb upon a table and shout, "I'm proud to be English!" (despite the fact that I'm nothing of the sort, being far more Ukrainian than anything).

What do penguin sex, apologizing for the crusades, a sexy carrot and living with freaks have in common? They’re all a part of the narrative on Christian spirituality that Donald Miller has woven together in his book, Blue Like Jazz.

An old college buddy of mine recommended this book saying that Donald Miller is his “latest FAVORITE author.” As he explained it, Miller “blows up all the little evangelical niceties in favor of real faith, and he has a really engaging narrative style.” To be honest, that about sums up the book. Of course, it doesn’t explain how the sexy carrot fits in.

Yeah, sexy carrots. You see, Blue Like Jazz isn’t your normal book for grown-ups. After reading along for awhile, Miller takes a moment of the reader’s time to illustrate a point with a series of cartoons. Parents who have read Captain Underpants to their kids might find this form of narrative embellishment already familiar. One of the cartoons is about a rabbit, Don Rabbit, who spots a sexy carrot and chases her to the moon until he catches, kills and eats her. Then he dies. After all that he managed to choke on the carrot.

There’s a point to that story about the rabbit and the carrot. I promise. But you’ll have to read the book to figure what it has to do with Christianity.

Miller has three writing styles that he uses in this book: adolescent comedian, liberal-arts major (AKA groovy poet man), and charming intellectual. I really enjoyed reading the words of the charming intellectual. He made great connections, was realistic, and had profound insights. The liberal-arts major made me want to barf on several occasions. I suppose I got my fill of all that while living in San Francisco. The adolescent comedian was much like any other adolescent comedian I’ve ever met -- simultaneously amusing and utterly annoying.

Many of the conclusions that Miller came to were ones that I had already made, but I know that Miller and I are in the minority when taking the whole of American Christianity into consideration. It’s all too common for those who line the pews each Sunday to be simply going through the motions. Brought up to believe as their parents did, their faith is but a vague photocopy of the original. Church becomes more of a club than a point of deep connection with God and God’s people. Many people who call themselves Christians today haven’t even read the Bible through once, let alone walked out the Bible in the context of the community of believers.

Miller’s book was written for these people. People who have grown up in the church, but who have only been going through the motions and wondering why that never seemed very fulfilling. With his postmodern writing style, Miller’s book seems directly aimed at those who are emerging from under their parents’ wings (and parents’ religion).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“You know what really helped me understand why I believe in Jesus, Tony?”
What’s that?”
“Penguins.” I told him.
“Penguins?”
“Penguins,” I clarified. “Do you know very much about penguins?”
“Nope,” Tony smiled. “Tell me about penguins.”
“I watched a nature show on OPB the other night about penguins. They travel in enormous groups, perhaps five hundred of them, and they swim north in the coldest of winter, so far north they hit ice. They look like cartoons, like something out of that movie Fantasia. All five hundred of them swim till they hit ice then they jump out of the water, one by one, and start sliding on their bellies. They sort of create ruts as they slid, and they follow each other in a line. They do this for days, I think.”
“They slide on their bellies for days?” Tony asked.
“Days,” I told him.
“Why?”
“I don’t know,” I confessed. “But after a while they stop sliding, and they get around in a big circle and start making noises. And what they are doing is looking for a mate. It’s crazy. It’s like a penguin nightclub or something--like a disco. They waddle around on the dance floor till they find a mate.”
“Then what?” Tony asked, sort of laughing.
“Penguin sex,” I said.
“Penguin sex?”
“Yes. Penguin sex. Right there on television. I felt like I was watching animal porn.”

Ideally I'd wait until Christmas time rolls around again to post this link, but as Sara (I think that's her name) says, "I've just been alerted to something so very, very wrong, it cannot wait."

Here's some more quotes:

"Once again proving that the only thing better than a cheap nativity is a cheap nativity with fiber optic holiness-indicators..."

"apologies for all the big images, but if I compress them too much, you lose the horror. "

"I don't know about you, but I never want to have to decide if I should eat the baby Jesus feet-first or head-first."

"God came to earth...as a hobbit."

The quotes are just a foretaste. The pictures bring it all to life. So here you go, a little bit of Christmas in July. Enjoy!

A new phrase became popular (in some Christian circles, at least) about a decade ago: "Jesus is the reason for the season." I started seeing this plastered across shopping bags (from Christian stores that were capitalizing on the commercialism of Christmas) and this year I've heard my daughters singing a song by that title that they apparently learned in Sunday School. But is Jesus really the reason for the season?

The holiday currently referred to as Christmas actually began long before the Christ was born for whom the mass is said. The winter solstice has long been a cause for celebration, not only because it marks the beginning of longer days, but it was also the time when many farm animals were slaughtered and their meat preserved for the winter (as it was far more cost effective to turn them into meat than to try to feed them through a long, hard winter).

In Scandinavia, the Norse celebrated Yule from the end of December until the beginning of January. The men would find the largest logs they could and, after hauling them back to the village, would set them ablaze. The citizens would then party for as long as the log burned, sometimes for as long as 12 days (hence the 12 days of Christmas).

In Germany, many believed that the god Oden would fly overhead at night determining who would prosper and who would perish in the coming year ("gonna find out who's naughty and nice").

The Romans celebrated for an entire month each winter, honoring the god Saturn in a festival called Saturnalia. During that time food and drink was plentiful, the poor were treated as royalty with the rich waiting on them, and gifts were given.

Many upper class Romans also celebrated the birth of Mithras, god of the unconquerable sun, on December 25th. This was often considered to be the most important holiday of the year. The emperor Constantine was said to be a follower of Mithra before his supposed conversion to Christianity.

There is no where in the Bible that states what day Jesus was born, nor that it should be celebrated by his followers. Though Jesus commanded his disciples to remember his death and resurrection (which takes place every Easter (Btw, Easter is the name of an Anglo-Saxon goddess.) as well as with every serving of communion), he never spoke of his birth as an item of note.

The first evidence of a Christian feast of the Nativity (which is what Christmas was called before it was called Christmas) is found in 200 AD in Egypt, and was celebrated in spring (at times in either March, April or May). In time, Christians were celebrating the Nativity on many different days, most on the same day as the feast of the Epiphany, January 6th. But in the 380's AD, Chrysostom gave a sermon in which he argued that December 25th was the most appropriate day for the celebration and apparently the church fathers agreed. Christmas wasn't called by that name until some time in the middle ages (some say as late as 1810) when Christ Mass was contracted.

In the early 17th century, the rise of Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans led to an abrupt about face concerning the celebration of the Nativity. Generally a time of raucous debauchery, the Puritans outlawed it entirely. The pilgrims brought this attitude with them when they came to the Americas and from 1659 to 1681, Christmas was outlawed in Boston. Even in other parts of the country, Christmas was seen as an English holiday and not celebrating Christmas was a sign of independence. Eventually that mindset eased and on June 26, 1870, Christmas was declared to be a national holiday.

Over the next 135 years, Christmas has continued to morph and change, keeping the gift giving it inherited from Saturnalia, as well as the holly and mistletoe from pagan fertility rituals, but adding on a distinctly American component as well -- Santa Claus as we know him today, a rolly polly man in fluffy red and white vestments. The Christmas that most Americans celebrate today is a well blended series of pagan rituals with a dab of "Christian meaning" tossed in.

That's certainly not to say that Christmas can't still be a meaningful time for Christians. Recognizing that God would be willing to take on human flesh for mankind's sake is definitely a cause for celebration. But at the same time, for Christians to get in a huff that some stores would hang signs saying "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" is akin to early Romans who might have complained that their celebration of Mithra was being co-opted by some odd group of monotheists (also referred to as atheists since they had no pantheon of gods).

So go out and find the largest log you can and throw it on the fire. Kill the fatted calf and pour the ale. Hang the mistletoe and string the evergreens about the house. Give gifts and make merry, for tomorrow is Saturnalia, Juvenalia, Yule, the birth of Mithra, the Feast of the Nativity, Christmas!!!

Suburbs are a fairly new phenomenon. Before cars it was simply silly to consider building housing as far away from business as is the practice today. Most people had to walk or ride a horse drawn carriage to work, shopping, etc. and distances were spaced accordingly. (This is often referred to as building on a human scale.)

Today, however, the automobile has changed the landscape and a group of people called New Urbanists believe that it has been a change for the worse. Besides the environmental degradation caused by this new pattern of development, there are other, more social, issues at stake. Our cities aren't as grand or beautiful as they once where (Do you know anyone who would choose to visit Denver over Rome, or Pontiac over Paris?), they aren't as safe (Current redesigns of cities put fewer "eyes on the street.") and they aren't as conducive to building community. (How many neighbors can you stop and chat with when you're whizzing past in an automobile?)

New Urbanists have been around for over a decade, but for the first time (that I know of, at any rate) a Christian author has looked critically at the arguments that New Urbanists have made and has decided that not only should Christians support them, but should join wholeheartedly in the New Urbanist movement. Eric O. Jacobsen is excellent at stating the tenants of New Urbanism in a very concise, yet readily accessible way. But what I find even more exciting (and this is a step that I hadn't fully followed through on in my own study of New Urbanism) he ties their tenants to Biblical principles. He points out that evangelism, hospitality, even encouragement can all happen more naturally in a New Urbanist environment (as opposed to forcing these things in the suburban environment through programming and increasingly moving toward entertainment as a form of "worship").

I have lived in Colorado Springs (sprawl-o-rama) and in San Francisco (makes New Urbanists smile), and I've seen in my own life that these principals of architecture (of all things!) really do affect relationships. Sprawl is causing the average American to become lonelier, feel less connected, and to relate less often with people who are different than themselves (becoming more segregated than ever). I should point out here, for all those with a "small town" mindset, small towns are generally built on New Urbanist principals. It is easier to develop relationships in small towns not only because they're small, but because of the layout of the town itself. Suburbs, on the other hand, may have the same smaller amount of people, but are laid out such that community is much harder to come by naturally.

As Christians, we should be at the forefront of the New Urbanist movement. We have to have some means of running into neighbors that will lead to our giving of hospitality, making of friendships and sharing of the gospel. (I don't mean that we're accosting them with a gospel presentation every time we see them in front of their house, but passing by and meeting them in front of their house in the first place may later lead to a far more natural means of sharing the gospel later.) Meeting them on the sidewalk as we're walking to work/school/the store is a natural means of getting to know people (hence the title of the book).

New Urbanism doesn't mean that we all need to crowd into cities such as San Francisco and New York City, but it does mean developing our current cities in a more person friendly manner (on a human scale). This is not really a new movement at all, but a call to get back to basics. In Christianese, one might even call it "fundamentalism" in architecture.

Though I consider this a must read for most Christians, non-Christians may also be interested in this book, not only because it'll give them something to bug their Christian friends about, but because Jacobsen really does a fantastic job of synthesizing the issues. I’ve read a couple of different New Urbanist authors and of them all, I believe Jacobsen is the most concise and one of the better authors at getting to the heart of the matter in a way that makes the reader feel like they’ve had an “Ah ha! Now I get it!” moment.

Overview of the Book

Since the days of Constantine, the church has "enjoyed" a time of power and influence. Even in the United States, a nation that allows for the freedom of religion, Christianity has been the de facto state religion until only recently. But in the past few decades, much to the consternation of many who call themselves Christian, this tacit relationship has been not just threatened, but almost completely broken, leading to what is today referred to as the culture wars.

Rodney Clapp believes that the current climate, in the midst of these culture wars, is a good opportunity for Christianity to come to terms with itself. Many Christians operate under the impression that America is (or at least, recently was) a Christian nation. (In fact, much of the world sees the U.S. that way). But Clapp devotes a fair amount of time to his postulation that America could be better defined as a gnostic nation.

Clapp begins his book with an explanation of how the Church has gotten to where it is today (a point where many see it as largely irrelevant and useless). He then argues in great detail what the church should be: a people of God, a nation, with its own culture, its own language and its own customs. He by no means is referring to our current consumer-oriented christian culture (where Christians wear WWJD bracelets and speak in Christianese). He encourages the church not to become something new to fit with the times, but to rather recognize what we already are, and to take hold of the advantages that provides (advantages such as the tool, perhaps even a weapon, of forgiveness).

The type of church that Clapp is arguing for is most likely not what you might guess. He is certainly not saying that we need to be bigger and better as Bill Hybels (pastor of Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois and in some ways the father of the American mega-church movement as well as the seeker-sensitive movement) would advocate, nor is he encouraging the marketing gimmicks of Rick Warren (author of The Purpose Driven Life and The Purpose Driven Church). Rather, he’s encouraging the church to be the church: a group of people, learning together to follow God and to love each other.

Concerns -- Possible Problems You May Encounter in reading this book

One struggle I had in reading this book was that though Clapp uses familiar words, he uses them in a way that is unfamiliar. He really should provide a glossary of some sort so that the reader won’t get tripped up on his choice of words and miss his message. I’ve tried to compile a mini-glossary on my own (both to better help me understand what I’m reading, and to help my husband and others who are reading this book). Please note, the definitions listed below may not be exactly what Clapp meant when he used these words, but I tried to develop each definition based on context.

Political: Don’t even begin to think of this word in terms of Democrat vs. Republican (or whatever your country’s main political parties may be). When Clapp uses the word political (as well as I can figure) he is referring more to issues of national import, national identity, and national history (and in this book, the nation that is being discussed is the Church).` Unfortunately, I think that in a couple of instances, Clapp does use the word “political” to mean what we often consider it to mean (taking sides in a partisan setting). Which only adds to the confusion when one comes across this word.

Liberal: When we consider the word liberal, we often think in terms of partisan politics. Democrats are considered liberal. The media is considered liberal. Homosexuals are considered liberal. But when Clapp using the word, he’s harkening back to the origin of the word liberal from the Latin, liber, meaning free. In other words, independent. A right wing Republican can still be considered liberal in Clapp’s definition because it has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with one’s view of the individual. A person who believes that their relationship with God is solely between them and God and not for perusal or input from other’s is liberal.

Retrenchment: I still haven’t figured this one out. If you’ve read the book and think you have a handle on this, please add it to the comments section. I know it has to do with the response of some Christians to the culture wars. And I know its a bad response. I think it has to do with trying to get things “back to the good old days” but I’m seriously not certain of that.

Kudos -- Specific Reasons You Should Read This Book

Narrative Logic: Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon have written a book called Resident Aliens. In it, they describe a concept called “narrative logic.” Though I think they define the term better, I think Clapp does a better job at delving into various topics and showing how that narrative logic comes to play. All three of these authors that Jehovah God is a God of history. He has shown himself to and through his people and the story of his people has been recorded in the Bible. This narrative, then, guides the logic the church should use in making decisions (How do we relate to each other? What is our purpose? Who is God? How should we respond in this instance? etc.)

Purity of the Church: In the denomination that I am currently a member of, one thing that is promised upon entrance into the church is that I (the entering member) pledge to pursue the purity of the church. Despite the fact that we all say this, I think that we rarely do it (or even have any clue what it means to pursue the purity of the church.) Reading books such as this one, in my opinion, are a step toward that end. The book doesn’t lay out specifics of how a church should look (such as stating how many and what kind of meetings should be held each week, or stating which kind of music should be played), but gives a general outline (from many different perspectives so that if one doesn’t click with you another might) of what church is and how it should look. It should be a place of love and forgiveness, of community and of practicing together, in a safe place, how we should be living out in the world.

Good Group Discussion Book

Though this is a good book to read on your own, I suspect it would be exponentially better when read and discussed with others. Practical applications could better be drawn out. Difficult sections could be explained or argued about until they make better sense. And the topics that the book addresses are good to have brought up in church settings. As the church we should be mindful of who and what we are. We shouldn’t assume that we can glide through “church” without ever taking it seriously. (We often leave the serious business to the paid staff.)

Though I think a non-Christian might find this book interesting, it’s certainly directed at Christians. I believe that this book would be appreciated by anyone that likes to sift through ideas, concepts and philosophies. For those that don’t like sorting through the nitty-gritty, I’d recommend reading this book out loud with someone else so that they can help do that sorting (since I believe you’ll still find value in the activity).

A friend recently added as an aside during our conversation that Sam Walton was a Christian, one more reason to shop at Walmart. I wanted to puke but thought it would be rude so instead I filed her comment away and decided to document just how "Christian" Walmart values are.

"Wal-Mart's business was built upon a foundation of honesty, respect, fairness and integrity." -- from Wal-Mart's statement of ethics

If you know of articles, news, info. that says otherwise, ping me.

This is the last transfer from my old site. It was originally posted in the spring of 2003.

I'm personally quite pleased when I see the title of this entry right next to the title of my last entry.

I should add, though, before you read this, that the intended audience for this article is Christians, specifically the "Christian Right." The article is pretty biased (especially about environmental issues) and I think I overstated some issues rather too strongly. But I hope that for my intended audience, the message might come at them in a way that it hasn't been presented before and that they'll be able to see issues that are often considered "liberal" *gasp* in a different (and more spiritual) light.

I should also add that I've modified some chunks of this article. I must have been in a hurry (or very distracted) when I wrote it. Some sentences were so ungrammatical that I couldn't make heads nor tails of them. So I fiddled with them a bit, hopefully enough that you can at least get the gist of what I was getting at.

			(why i am) Pro-Life I like to eat. And when I eat, I don't generally like to sit around thinking about where the food came from. But I'm also pro-life. And it just doesn't make sense to feast on something that may have been sprayed with pesticides, increasing the cancer rates among those who picked the food. I want to eat to sustain my life. A byproduct of my food consumption shouldn't be to decrease someone else's. "And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man." -- Genesis 9:5 And, because I am pro-life, it makes sense that I am also concerned about bio-diversity. (Bios means life -- life diversity.) To support bio-diversity means supporting efforts to protect species that are endangered as well as to promote means of living which encourage other species (besides humans, their pets and food animals) to thrive as well. Being pro-bio-diversity means to appreciate and live in harmony with all of God's creation, seeing it as something to protect and guard rather than as something to be used