Recording :: Recovering Our Creative Calling

Yesterday was awesome.  It was full of awesomeness.  I spent time with four young people with whom I served this summer at Institute, a United Methodist youth camp held at Baker University.  We visited my friend Kevin Norris, who runs a sound and production company called GroovySoul, and my musician friends laid down four tracks.  Two of the songs were original compositions, and the other two were songs that were sung prominently during our week of camp.  Great stuff.

Here are a few photos.

[caption id="attachment_961" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Kevin at the controls."][/caption]



[caption id="attachment_962" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Beth on vocals."][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_963" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Nolan on keys."][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_964" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Kayli on amazingness."][/caption]

The Bleeding God :: Thoughts on Daniel Bell's "God Does Not Require (or Demand) Blood"

In February 2009, The Christian Century featured Daniel Bell's article, "God Does Not Require Blood" on their cover.  The imagery found there was as evocative as the title, showing two band-aids placed in the form of a cross.  The article itself was adapted from a chapter of the same name in God Does Not..., a 2008 resource published by Brazos Press challenging not only the demand for blood, but also conceptions of God as matchmaker, entertainer, cure-all, or as one in a hurry.

Bell's article begins with an accurate statement concerning the Christian aversion to blood sacrifice.  Christians have not killed animals, or their firstborn, in worship of God, and have found such forms of sacrifice abhorrent and unnecessary.  But despite the rejection of blood sacrifice as a Christian practice, Bell declares, the logic of blood sacrifice significantly influences first how Christians think about God, and then subsequently how they act.  Herein lies Bell's concern.

Bell knows that we live in a violent culture, and he is deeply concerned that Christians, far too often, have allowed the notion of redemptive violence inherent  in "the logic of blood sacrifice" to reinforce and perpetuate such violence.  As examples of where such logic fails, he points to any Christian defense of capital punishment, Martin Luther's encouragement to peasants to "endure their affliction" and remain in their station, and pastoral counseling to battered spouses advising them to remain in those relationships.  As far as the theological implications for such forms of redemptive violence, Bell states quite plainly, "All of this is wrong.  God does not demand or require blood to redeem us.  God neither inflicts violence nor desires suffering in order to set the divine-human relation right.  In spite of its pervasiveness in Christian imagery, the cost of communion, or reconciliation and redemption, is not blood and suffering."

Bell further illustrates redemptive violence as the concept underpinning our national response to September 11, 2001 as well as the basic plot lines of most television action dramas, in which bad guys commit violence only to be overtaken by good guys who commit "good" violence.  He notes government initiatives to wage war on drugs, disease, or obesity, and how most popular video games "revolve around apocalyptic levels of violence" as further evidence of our deeply ingrained propensity to seek blood.  

But redemptive violence is not the only problem for Bell.  On the flip side of the same coin, Bell names redemptive suffering and the associations made with Christian life and practice as equally troublesome.  Bell is concerned for those that might suffer unjustly.  As one example, Bell recalls how Martin Luther King, Jr. was urged to forestall his work by a group of white clergy, and thus prolong the suffering of both he and the African-American people.  He would not wait and suffer redemptively.  King understood that the time demanded action.  In response, those clergymen received the now famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." 

From here Bell turns to the cross and the atonement.  He asks, "Wasn't this the supreme act of redemptive violence?  Isn't it the case that in spite of our visceral reaction against blood sacrifice, Christ was the ultimate blood sacrifice?"  Here, of course, we meet Anselm, the medieval theologian charged with most clearly articulating the substitutionary or satisfaction theory of the atonement.  Bell also introduces the governmental theory of atonement to cite an second example where Christ's death on the cross satisfies the payment for either our individual sins or our corporate transgressions "in order to uphold the integrity of the moral order of the universe."

It is at this point that Bell wrestles with the choice many have faced in wrestling with these dimensions of the atonement within classical Christian theology.  He acknowledges that some, in their desire to reject the notion of a God who demands blood, have also had to reject the cross.  He notes that this leads to a rejection of the cross as redemptive or central to God's redemption, an appeal to the love of God that renders a focus on sacrifice an error, or declaring Christ's death on the cross as some form of divine child abuse.  After recognizing these pathways, Bell surprises the reader by refusing to accept them.  He says, "I believe any effort to make the case that God does not demand blood cannot simply skip over the cross but must pass right through it."

Bell states:

I believe that Christ's work of atonement, when rightly understood, demands the rejection of blood sacrifice and the logic of redemptive violence.  Christ's work on the cross is not about satisfying a divine demand for blood, but about showing us that God does not demand blood.  Christ's work on the cross is the divine refusal of blood sacrifice, as well as any notion that suffering violence is or can be redemptive.

Bell goes on further to say that "This love of God expressed in Jesus saves us.  It is the love that would rather die on the cross than give up  on us."  As we are joined to Christ, we then are "transformed (sanctified) and live our lives according to another logic."  We love our enemies, forgive, and renounce violence.  In the process we may suffer, but only "because suffering is the cost that humans in their sinful rebellion impose on other humans."  Bell rejects the notion that such suffering could in itself be redemptive.  It is simply a consequence of living in the world.

Bell's account is interesting, for it is challenging.  But it does not seem right.  The terms do not seem correct, as the idea that God "does not demand blood" counters an equally opposing idea that "God does demand blood."  

I have listened to enough preachers (particularly Reformed and neo-Calvinist voices) whose rhetoric from the pulpit gives this impression, so I do see where such an idea might come from.  And I believe Bell does support his claim by examining governmental and substitutionary examinations of the atonement.  But as I consider the story of Christianity and Judaism found in the New and Old Testaments, to designate God as one who "demands" or "not demands" blood seems wrongheaded.  The term "demand" appears to be misplaced.

I will state first that the commandments as they were given to Israel were regarded as gift and responsibility, not burden or obligation.  Israel was given "teaching" or "instruction" to offer sacrifices to their God, and that practice included the shedding of the blood of animals.  Any reading of the Old Testament account would find that sacrifice was not regarded as meeting the demands of a blood thirsty God, but was rather a way of remembering those narratives that were foundational for the constitution of a people called Israel.  Through sacrifice, the people of Israel are reminded of God's holiness, otherness, and purity.  As God is somehow distinct from his people, the people of Israel are to be distinct from the nations.  In a sense, Bell is right in saying that God does not "demand" blood, but this does not mean that the shedding of blood does not have a place in telling the story of God.

When we turn to the New Testament, Bell's account of Christ's shedding of blood seems insufficient.  Stated plainly, it is missing the eschatological claim that in the cross God put violence to death and constituted a people called to be God's peace.  While in the Old Testament the people of Israel may have met their responsibility in their worship of God through the practice of blood sacrifice, in the New Testament we see God taking the sins of the world upon himself in the person of Jesus Christ, suffering crucifixion, and in the process declaring an end to violence.  In Christ's death, we do not see Jesus of Nazareth meeting a demand for blood, but rather declaring victory over the powers through the gift of his obedience.  In the New Testament as well as the Old, the language of "demand" does not fit the narrative.

Of course, who am I to question a professional theologian?  My own understanding of the atonement needs strengthening.  I have found the approach taken by Scot McKnight in A Community Called Atonement more helpful, as McKnight argues that the various theories are all necessary for a robust understanding of what happened in the cross.  Bell's effort to dismiss substitution or governmental theories of atonement in favor of what appears to be a moral influence approach, in my opinion, fails because it is undertaken on the wrong terms, does not adequately fit the biblical narrative, and lacks the eschatological dimension necessary for any account of atonement.

Thinking about the atonement is important, and Bell's concern that accounts of Christ's death that depict God as a blood thirsty tyrant can have negative repercussions for how Christians think and act is valid.  We would do well to heed his warnings, but must move beyond his account, I believe, if we are to speak of the atonement in a robust manner, a manner which includes regarding Christ's death as a sacrifice which does away with our sin, justifies us before God's throne, and inspires us to greater acts of love and sacrifice.  Such a vision is possible, and, I believe, indicative of Christ's blood flowing through the heart of his body, the Church.

Cultural Adaptation = Loss of Gospel Culture?

Over the past few years I have been fortunate to hold subscriptions to both Christianity Today and Christian Century magazines.  I don't always do the best job staying on top of my stack of publications, but over the past two weeks I have carved out time during my day to browse through my collection and learn more about the current state of Christian world.  Over the next few days I'll be commenting on a few of the articles I found intriguing.

First among the articles I found of note was a Christianity Today piece in the August 2009 (current) issue entitled, "Mega-mirror: Megachurches are not the answer or the problem."  I grew up in a large church in an East Texas town, and have served as a volunteer or staff person in three different large churches since college.  The CT article briefly captures the ethos of the American megachurch, references recent studies that have grabbed headlines from major media outlets (such as this Hartford Institute For Religion Research report, "Not Who You Think They Are: The Real Story of People Who Attend America's Megachurches"), and draws parallels to the ways overseas missionaries adapt themselves to the culture in which they minister so that they might share Christ.  In the same way for megachurches in this country, the CT article concedes that, "In corporate America, it may be necessary to use the ethos of marketing to gain a gospel hearing."

This proposition has been, and continues to be, quite seductive.  In an effort to make inroads into the world of suburban, middle to upper professionals, church leaders have adapted the best techniques of the marketplace to build a constituency.  Most churches who have implemented marketing techniques have appealed most to the power-brokers of our communities, and, as the CT article acknowledges, have yielded success.  And I concede that this is a good thing.  But along the way, I have questioned whether such techniques, or means, in the end, can be justified by the type of person (Christian) that they produce.

After acknowledging that American megachurches have achieved some good by adapting themselves to the culture, CT issues a challenge.  CT returns to those missionaries working overseas, who, in cultures where polygamy was practiced, were willing to tolerate such an idea for the first generation, but by the second generation were working to teach fidelity between one husband and one wife in marriage.  The piece raises the question as to whether the cultural adaptations made by America's megachurches to reach the masses have resulted in a loss of "gospel culture," and challenges megachurch leaders to consider how their second generation ministries might shift away from business and consumer language.

CT cites a number of familiar but disturbing findings from the "Not Who You Think They Are" study (sponsored by Leadership Network), highlighting that megachurch attenders are:

• younger (young and single adults are more attracted to megachurches than to smaller churches);


• transient (nearly two-thirds have been in these churches fewer than five years); and


• passive (45 percent of them never volunteer at church).

CT states, "Spiritual consumerism is clearly one reason the megachurch attracts so many--and one reason many wonder what type of faith people are being discipled into."

The CT article then takes an interesting turn.  The editors chose to cite that, when the data is analyzed more closely, it can be demonstrated that the megachurch is "more like a megaphone," amplifying the reality of the American church as a whole.  The article states that most medium-sized and smaller churches "are not that much different in demographics," and even goes so far to say that "many a small church chases after 'strategies and programs' that can 'meet spiritual needs' and 'multiply effectiveness.'"  Stated differently, CT simply believes that "business culture" is far more dominant than "biblical culture" in our churches, and those pointing a finger at megachurches as either the problem or heralding them as the solution have failed to recognize systemic shortcomings that plague us all.  After challenging the reader to admit that all churches fall short of God's glory, the article ends by saying, "Once we all admit that, the Spirit can start working with us to create a gospel culture in our churches."

In response, I have to ask, "What exactly is a gospel culture?"

While the CT piece borderlines on being prophetic, in the end I was disappointed.  The reader was told that "business-like" and "consumer-driven" megachurch ministries are problematic.  But in the final three paragraphs it seemed as though those ministries, who in their second and third generations should be shifting toward a new ethos in ministry, are simply let off the hook underneath the umbrella of "we are all broken."  It seems as though the CT article points to the reality that there is another way to think of ourselves ecclesiastically, and that there is another way for us to exist as the church in America that is in greater accord with the gospel, but, in the end, does not provide us with even a hint of how that might be accomplished.  We are only given the vague appeal for "gospel culture."  I understand that there is an appeal to the Spirit, but the writer(s) also say that the Spirit will "work with us."  So, what are we to do?

When I have engaged in discussions with large-church leaders (and even smaller church leaders) who are extremely market-driven I have found that the greatest limitation to their ability to move beyond the "salesmanship" mentality is either that of imagination or that of faith.  Many leaders do not believe that a message that is unsensational or lacking in hype will result in the growth of the church.  Without cool graphic work, excellent promotional videos, or email marketing heralding the next thing at the church as "the most exciting and best thing we have ever done," there is a fear that people will be bored, they will disengage, and they will be lost forever, as though the work of bringing people to Jesus had everything to do with the leader and their ability to manipulate the environment, and little to do with the power and grace of God.

If the CT article is right, that "Each American church in its own way has been co-opted and fallen short of the glory of God," I pray that we as leaders would have the imagination and the faith to dream that things can be different, and rather than throw up our hands in despair, continuing on in our old patterns, I pray that we would begin to work toward what a gospel culture might truly be, acknowledging that a result resembling that dream would not be to our own glory, but to the One who called us and sustains us.

40 Days of Prayer for United Methodist Campus Ministries

My friends Ashlee Alley and Creighton Alexander are excited about the fall. They are excited to know that as the colleges where they minister begin the fall semester there will be many who are praying for the students, faculty, and campus ministries at their institutions. They are encouraged to know that so many have expressed their enthusiasm by virtue of their Facebook group and through other conversations, and anticipate how God will move in the coming year.

Creighton and Ashlee understand that campus ministry is important. They also have recognized that many United Methodist leaders received their call to ministry during this crucial and formative time. Campus ministry is important. It serves as a link between the local church and the broader family of Methodism during a time where young people are discerning their identity, asking serious questions about the Christian faith, definitely thinking about career and perhaps thinking about family, and dreaming about where their life is headed. Solid campus ministries have the opportunity to encourage and equip college students for life in college and beyond, and are vital for the moral formation of our students during this season of life change. Campus ministry is important, and even if nobody cares about campus ministry, they should.

I would encourage you to check out the 40 Days of Prayer for Campus Ministry effort and lift your voice with other leaders. This initiative is a way to support and undergird the United Methodist Church's effort to raise up and equip principled Christian leaders. Visit their Facebook page and sign up. Download the prayer guide here on August 10, or visit this web site for more information.

Join God's people as we lift our voice.

Words and Instrumentation

It is no secret I'm a music geek.  It is also no secret that I am in love with words.  When I was in high school a great deal of my life was determined by music.  My friend Scott Beimler and I would listen carefully to all kinds of music, mining the lyrics for kernels of truth that would "relate" to our present life.  We would spend hours picking through his expansive music collection, browsing sleeve inserts and reading through the printed materials that came along with some of his best boxed set collections.  We were fascinated with lyrics.  We would find words that possessed power, and those words were heightened by instrumentation and music that would resonate with the present state of our soul, whether we were soaring at our highest heights or had plummeted to our lowest of lows.  I have continued to have friends with whom a shared love of music has been important to the relationship, such as Scot Huber or Mike Hibit, and I have been thankful for the sharing of harmony, rhythm, truth, and beauty that music has the unique power to convey. 

Last week I had the opportunity to share the music of a community that has blessed me in recent years, and I took great joy from the conversations and shared passions which were born through those conversations.  I asked a handful of students whom I walked alongside last week which musicians they listened to, and I came home with a list of 15 to 20 bands or performers they found compelling.  I had work to do on iTunes.  I also shared some of my musical preferences, most notably the work of Mike Crawford and His Secret Siblings.  It was particularly exciting to share "Words to Build a Life On" and see the students incorporate that anthem into our camp worship experiences.

If you haven't heard of Mike Crawford, check out his work at his MySpace page, and if you're interested in learning how to play a couple of the songs that have been born out of the Jacob's Well community, check out Mike's YouTube Channel.  You can also check in with Mike Crawford's website, which is under construction, but according to Mike's comment I found on this blog post, it is forthcoming soon and will feature charts and tabs.  If you're interested in picking up their two CD collection, you can click here or wait till mid-August, at which time you can purchase it through iTunes.  Both the music and the lyrical content are fantastic.

Mike's music is stuff I would recommend.  I particularly love the way in which the words of Scripture are sung throughout the album, which, at this time in my life, are the very words upon which I feast.  Mike's music also allows for the Word to be heard in fresh ways, and, in a sense, recaptures the narrative of Scripture in a manner that ignites the imagination and opens up new possibilities for how that Word may be born in us as followers of Jesus.

T.S. Eliot, in his poem "Ash Wednesday," observed:

If the lost word is lost, if the spent word is spent
If the unheard, unspoken
Word is unspoken, unheard;
Still is the unspoken word, the Word unheard,
The Word without a word, the Word within
The world and for the world;
And the light shone in darkness and
Against the Word the unstilled world still whirled
About the centre of the silent Word.

We live in a world where the Word is unheard and unspoken.  But Mike's music points to the Word, the light which shone in the darkness, which stands silent and waits to be spoken, and, even when it is unspoken, still stands at the center.  Mike's music is witness to truth and beauty that has a name, Jesus the Christ.

If you haven't already picked up Mike Crawford's work, do it, and let it bless you.