Dynamic Yet Consistent

It has been a long time since something has really gotten my blood boiling, but at 1:00 in the morning while I waiting on videos to render I came across this video.

Let me give a disclaimer first.  I have always approached Mark Driscoll with some hesitancy.  Most of the time I don’t disagree with what he is saying, but I do question his delivery.  To put it simply, I tend to put the emphasis different things.

That being said, this commentary on gender roles is completely out of line and personally offensive.  In case you don’t know, I am currently a stay-at-home dad and this was a decision Beth and I did not take lightly, but are completely happy and at peace with the decision.

Okay, enough with the disclaimers — on to the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WPVxndUcHQ

Lets start with delivery before we dive into the deeper points.  I am convinced Mark thinks he is a better pastor if he drives people out of his church.  He seems to take an arrogant pleasure in the fact that some of the stuff he is saying will piss people off and cause them to leave (by the way… this seems to be par for the course.)  I am sure he would say he is sticking to his guns in the face of a fickle society.  Don’t get me wrong, Christians need to be unwavering on some issues and refuse to compromise.  However, even on issues that stand at the core of Christian belief, there is no need to enter the conversation by speaking down to those who hold opposing views.  There is no room for discussion or clarification.  For Driscoll, this is how it is and everyone else can go to hell.  It is one thing if he takes this attitude on things like the divinity of Christ, but he is talking about stay-at-home dads here.  If I remember correctly (and I too have read the whole Bible) there is no definitive passage addressing the evils of stay-at-home dadding, so we are all forced to interpret secondarily what the witness of scripture is.

Continuing with my critique of Driscoll’s tone, I must call him out for on some of the offensive things he said (and implies).  First, I think it is clear that Driscoll thinks all stay-at-home dads are deadbeats.  Forget his theological rational, his argument revolves around an assumption that it is not manly to stay at home.  Furthermore, he basically says that men suck at nurturing.  That may be the case for him, as he clearly admits, but lets not paint with too broad of a brush.  His statements about men not being cut out for the job of staying at home relies on stereotypes, is short-sighted and is offensive to those who do a great job (may I point to my man Lee Fowlkes.)  Furthermore, he builds his case on the assumption that women cannot adequately provide.  These comments are not based on biblical exegesis, but on ignorance.  If he wanted to make statements about the topic from a (conservative) biblical viewpoint he could have said something like “The bible outlines certain roles each gender should follow.  To deviate from those is a sin.”  Saying that would have been more biblically based without conveying arrogance, ignorance or hate.  The bible does not give him the right to judge the effectiveness of males parenting/nurturing skills.

Now, on to his arguments.  Driscoll bases most of his discussion his interpretation of 1 Timothy 5:8

If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

He has taken the phrase “does not provide for his relatives” to mean the “a man should be the breadwinner.”  But be careful here and go back and read the verse.  Is it addressed to men?  No!  The verse says “anyone” who does not provide for his relatives… So a wife not providing is as bad as a husband.  This is bolstered when you realize this whole segment of 1 Timothy is addressing how to care for widows.  Paul addresses gender roles, but he doesn’t do it here.  Even if you take traditional approach to Christian gender roles and insist on the male being the head of the household, you must admit scripture does not say the man must bring home the bacon.

Since Driscoll is a man who values “The Word” lets take a look at the word.  In 1 Timothy the word for provide is pronoeo and has nothing to do with providing physically.  Instead, it implies thinking ahead (pro=before) and planning.  It is used 3 times in the NT and tends to carry an administrative nuance.  So even if this did apply to directly and only to men (which it doesn’t), a first year seminary student could tell you the exegesis doesn’t allow for a reading that points primarily to providing physically. Driscoll says “if you are an able bodied man it is your job to provide for the needs of your family” and then he goes on to talk about work and material provision.  Where is he getting this, because he sure didn’t get it out 1 Timothy. He is clearly reading what he wants to into the text.  Even if we throw the greek (and context) out, we must admit that “providing for a family” is a multi-faceted thing.  A father could provide all the money in the world, but if he is not taking his turn changing diapers, he is worse than an unbeliever (sarcasm intended). If anything, American fathers need to know that God calls them to provide holistically for their families.  The last thing we need is more distant fathers.

“If our father is our basis for God, and our fathers abandoned us, then what does that tell you about God?” – Tyler Durden in Fight Club

Okay… lets look a bit deeper at how he chooses to answer the question.  The question was “What are your thoughts on stay-at-home dads if the mother really wants / needs to work.”  His answer reveals his convictions on gender roles.  Not only does he speak out against men staying home while women work, he makes it clear he believes a woman’s place is at home.

Personally, if a woman wants that, I think its a great option.  BUT… it is not the only option.  Again, even if you go into a discussion of gender roles, we have to understand what scripture says and doesn’t say.  It clearly does not say a woman should stay at home with the kids.    Driscoll bashes the “culturally relevant” argument, but in doing so he neglects the social situation of the day.  Thank God we have come a long way as a society and women now have choices and are not considered property.  Lets not adopt an archaic social structure (i.e. slavery) just because scripture addresses that cultural circumstance.  But again, that is not even relevant because scripture is silent on whether women should stay at home.  But I digress… I want to return to affirm women who choose to stay at home.  I think this is a much better option than paying someone else to raise your children.  Likewise, if women do work, I think that is a perfectly fine model as well — as long as your family is being cared for.

Lets return to Driscoll’s argument and something his wife says: “”It is hard to respect a man who does not provide…we need to take the word seriously.”  While I agree it would be hard to respect a man who does not care for his family, lets not forget “the word” does not use this phrase to address material, but actually care and foresight.  She then quotes Titus and Paul’s words to this young missionary.  Again, if we look at the context, Paul is giving some suggestions on what to teach to a new church.  There is one phrase in chapter 2 that says “women should be busy at home.”  Now… is there enough in those 6 words to base your entire post-marriage career path on?  I think not.  Can a woman (or man) be busy at home and have a job.  Absolutely.  Just ask my wife!

Lets end on a Driscolls closing.  He says there is nothing in scripture that allows for this sort of family structure.  First, I would also point out there is nothing in scripture that clearly lays out the structure he insists on (mother at home, dad bringing home the bacon).  But more importantly, I would disagree with him.  We do have a model of this.  Check out Lydia in Acts 16:

Lydia’s Conversion in Philippi

¹¹From Troas we put out to sea and sailed straight for Samothrace, and the next day on to Neapolis. ¹²From there we traveled to Philippi, a Roman colony and the leading city of that district of Macedonia. And we stayed there several days.

¹³On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. ¹⁴One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. ¹⁵When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.

…

⁴⁰After Paul and Silas came out of the prison, they went to Lydia’s house, where they met with the brothers and encouraged them. Then they left.

The text clearly shows a woman working outside the house.  The household is identified by her name rather than her husband’s and she is in a prestigious business.  I will grant a couple points: She was not a christian when described as working, it is possible her husband is dead / she is not married.  However, what I find important here is that the text is neutral and does not paint Lydia’s work outside the home as a bad thing.

Lets get personal for a second.  Beth and made the decision together for me to be a stay-at-home dad.  We realized that we could provide for our family best if she worked and I stayed home.  We are not giving into cultural trends, we are biblically asking how we can best provide and following through.  Let me say this too.  Beth is not working just so she can make the money to sustain the family.  She is working because the job she has allowed for more ministry than anything I could get.  Plus, it freed me up to engage in ministry of my own that I would not be able to do if I was working full time.  Forget killing two birds with one stone, we just took out a flock of geese with a boulder: Beth can minister as a teacher, I can minister during the day, Mikayla is raised primarily by her parents, financially we can give more to charity and the church…. and the list goes on.

Driscoll’s conclusion to the question asked is very direct: unless there are extreme circumstances, it is outside God’s will for a man to be a stay-at-home dad.  He even goes as far as saying such an action would require church discipline.  Once again, I must ask… on what grounds?  It is so frustrating to hear his pastor rail so heavily on the importance of the scripture, yet when you take even cursory glance at his arguments you realize his preconceived views are more heavily at play than the authority of scripture.  We aren’t even discussing interpretation of difficult passages.  Driscoll is ignoring the context and running with a flawed ideal.

This is not just about me getting my feelings hurt.  This man is calling into question the career and family life of a significant number of godly people.  Heaven forbid godly men and women abandon their life just because some pastor misreads (or ignores) the implications of Scripture.  If Beth and I were to act on his advice and take up his model for a godly family, we would be living on less, giving less, Mikayla would have less time with her parents, Beth would leave a job she loves and I would have to take a job I hate, our opportunities for ministry would decrease and our stress would increase.  Is that really the biblical ideal of providing for one’s family.  I think not.

I would leave his church over statements like this (and perhaps that would only stoke his ego) because I think they are dangerous and ignorant.

Beth and I are not ignoring the call of God, we are embodying it.  We are not clinging to culture and rejecting biblical truth, we are clinging to godliness and rejecting naivety and closemindedness.

Thankfully, after writing over 2000 words on the matter my blood pressure has returned to normal and maybe I can get some sleep. 😉

*I found this video while searching for stay-at-home dad blogs.  HT to athomedaddy.

I participate in a book study at Broadway UMC.  Right now we are working through a called Simply Christian by NT Wright (who happens to be one of the scholars I most look up to).

This past week the topic was supposed to be the Character of God and the story of Israel.  It surprised no one when we got a bit off subject and began talking about “souls” and what the main point of Christianity was.  When it comes to the soul I am a monist with reservations and thus don’t believe in a soul as traditionally defined — I reject the dualism of the whole proposition; I find thinking of the body as something separate from the soul leads to an unhealthy anthropology as we either see the flesh (and therefore the world) as bad or inconsequential.

That was a bombshell for some.  However it led to a good discussion on the philosophical development of the idea of the soul.  For the most part, writers in the Old Testament did not conceive of a soul.  Where the word does appear (nephish) it is referring more generally to “the self.”  Furthermore, the concept of an afterlife is virtually non-existent until the post-exilic age.  By the time of the second temple and the ministry of Jesus, the soul and the afterlife were firmly developed in Religious discussion.

So, that leads one to wonder, “What caused this change?”  Well the answer is relatively simply.  In the patriarchal (Abraham-Moses) era through the Monarchy (David, Solomon, and then all those chaps whose names you skim over when reading), the people of God saw all their needs fulfilled in YHWH in their day to day life (granted they did not always act like it).  They had YHWH’s presence with them; they had been given the promised land; and their identity was firmly established. There was no need to ask questions about what happens when you die because they saw fulfillment in their current situation.  For them, the primary question was “What does it look like to be the people of God.”  The answer to that is simple and contained in the promise to Abraham: “You will be blessed so that you can cause the blessing of all nations.”  From there, the laws and customs evolved to help flesh that out.

Things change once exile comes.  After the sins of the divided kingdoms, YHWH turns to the Assyrians and the Babylonians to be his instrument of judgment.  Simply put, Israel was not living up to their calling and the Presence, Land and Identity were stripped of them.  Before YHWH dwelt in their temple, now they were captives and YHWH presence seemed so distant.  They lamented: “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion…  How can we sing the songs of the LORD while in a foreign land?”  Their daily lives did not exhibit the hope they once had.

Carving depicting Assyrian Exile (you can tell by the pointy hat).

At this point, hopefully you are connecting the dots.  The concept of a soul and of the afterlife developed because the people of Israel had lost their identity and primary calling.  It no longer made sense to envision God’s will being played out in their day to day lives.  Their hope instead had to lie in the “by-and-by.”

The early Jews were driven by the question: What does it mean in this day to be the people of God?  This included issues of identity, blessing and duty.  For exilic and post-exilic Jews, the question evolved: What will it mean to be the people of God?

It is interesting these questions still dominate today.  To oversimplify, liberals/emergents tend to ask the first question while evangelicals/fundementalists ask the second question.  It is easy to find ourselves in one camp or the other.  One may say, “I am better because I realize the presence of God here and now” and the other may “I am better because I care about things that eternal.”

Of course the correct answer is that both questions are valid and equally important.  We must understand what it means to be the people of God in this world, and live in eager expectation and preparation for the world that is to come.  Without doubt, the ministry of Jesus brought together these questions and he provided the ultimate answer for each in these: He lived the perfect life of reconciliation and restoration, while providing mediation and direction for the life to come.

The real power is actually not found in asking these questions side by side or together.  Rather, I am convinced we should simplify our question back to original roots:  What does it mean to be the people of God.  This question involves Identity, lifestyle (holiness) and hope.  It is rooted in an understanding that we are blessed in order to cause the blessing of all the nations.  Christians must first understand themselves as the people of God and with that identity they can begin to ask “How should the people of God live in this present world” all-the-while experiencing the hope and reassurance of the world that is to come.

There were a thousand tangents I wanted to take with this post (community vs. idividual understanding of Christianity; Hebrew parsing of Abraham’s calling; heaven, hell, sheol, souls and nephish, etc.) but for now I will be content not making my primary question revolve around my present actions or my future destination, but rather about my identity and implications it brings.

Pondering the Question

For the past 6 months I have been the “guest speaker” at a rural church in Logan County.  Stephenson Chapel has been good to us and Beth and I have enjoyed our time there.  Even though there are some cultural differences (most of the church works on the farms and 80% of the families are related to each other and have been there for decades), they have granted me an amazing amount of flexibility.  I have benefited from being able to take some of the thoughts floating in my head from Seminary and give them flesh and coherence.  At first I just modified some sermons I had previously preached, but as time went on I began developing my own sermons series from scratch.  Knowing you only have a limited time, it is challenging to decide what is the most important things to focus on.

My first series was a merger of Rob Bell’s New Exodus material and Sandra Richter’s approach to understanding the Old Testament. This series focused on the major flow Israel and God’s constant desire to use his people to bring about a reconciled world.  From there, we transitioned into Lent where we looked at how Jesus fulfilled and continued this trajectory of redemption.  We ended by looking at what Jesus focused on when addressing believers and looked at wealth, possessions, worry, hate, etc.  Through all this my intention was to paint a picture from Genesis to Revelation of how God expects his people to join him bringing about a restored earth.  I always had in mind the picture from Revelation 21-22:

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

…

1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 4They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

When I first began to work through my faith, I never understood Christianity in any other way than a personal relationship with God that resulted in eternal life when I died.  The more I have worked through the Christian Narrative, the more I have realized following Jesus is just the entryway into a life of reconciliation that places Christians as the primary agents of restoration.  It was my goal in laying out the sermons at Stephenson Chapel so that this fuller understanding of Christianity was taught.  I don’t know if I succeeded or not, but it was helpful for me in my own faith to work through it.

Well last Sunday was my final day at Stephenson, and part of the motivation to write this post was my own reflection on the message I left them with.  Even as Beth and I were driving back to BG, I was thinking through these ideas.  It was during that drive that John Lennon’s song “Imagine came on.  I have included the video and lyrics below:

Imagine there’s no Heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one

At first blush it seems this song has nothing to do with Christianity (and I am sure Lennon would have agreed with that).  It talks about a world where there is no religion and heaven and hell are absent.  In fact, Lennon himself called Imagine “an anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-conventional, anti-capitalistic song.”  So what in the world does this song have to do with picking sermons to preach?

Well, I am convinced the world Lennon imagined is not far off from the world God is seeking to bring about through redemption.  The picture Revelation 21-22 paints is of a perfected earth where unity and peace are experianced.  The biblical witness highlights a life where greed is no more and where possessions are unimportant.  The unity of all nations is part of the expected telos that is to come.  As for heaven and hell, the golden streets and pearly gates are not way off in the by and by, but here on this earth.

In the end, the world Lennon imagined is not too far off from the world God imagined and is working to bring to fruition.  Of course there are myriad tangents this discussion can go, and plenty of proof-texting from both sides of the aisle.  But for now, I am content being a dreamer, and stand with confidence that a world where we will live as one is coming.

First, the mandatory confession: I suck at blogging.  There, I said, it now I can continue with my post without having to promise I will do better this time.  Lets face it, chances are this will be my only blog post for six months.  Now on to the good stuff.

The last 2 months have by far been the most transitional of my life.  Mikayla was born, I graduated from seminary, the distillery I work at had its grand opening, Kaleidoscope is undergoing a major transition… the list goes on.  In reflecting on these months I have grown to appreciate the tension of my life (some would call it chaos).  I love having my hands in a bunch of different pots (although I will admit I am not the best multi-tasker).

Right now, my primary job is that of stay-at-home dad.  This is the first week Mikayla and I have been home together alone on a regular basis.  I gotta say I love it.  She is sleeping right next to me on the bed as I type this.  I had someone urge me yesterday to apply for a full time job with great benefits and an excellent salary.  I turned it down.  I would not trade these hours with my daughter for any amount of money.

My primary source of income now comes from Corsair Distillery.  We make top shelf craft spirits.  Right now we are selling a gin, absinthe, spiced rum and vanilla bean vodka.  We are also working on several varieties of whiskey.  I love it because my job is different everyday: run the still, do tours and tastings, clean up, manage press releases, work with distributors, label, bottle, package….  I also enjoy the mix between science and craft.  We basically use science to create a craft product.  I guess you could say my artistic medium of choice is ethanol.

Speaking of Art, that brings me to my next job: Kaleidoscope.  Things really have changed since I came on in 2007.  Instead of a 250K budget, we now have about 5K in our account and no regular source of income.  I used to work more with community development, now I work with development.  Basically I am a (near) volunteer grant writer.  Right now we have well over a million dollars in outstanding grants.  It is crazy just waiting around to hear back on these.  We could live the next 3 years in feast or famine.

Finally, I work as UMC local pastor.  While my appointment is currently to Broadway UMC in Bowling Green, I have spent the last 6 months in Russelville at a small rural church.  They have been awesome to us and it has been great to have a chance to shape my seminary education into messages relevant to the church.  I am sure some of them are sick hearing about the Old Testament and importance of understanding the trajectory of redemptive history, but I am confident our time together has resulted in a better understanding of how we fit into the bigger picture.

Each of these four areas are so diverse, yet capture a small part of who I am.  I am a husband/father/distiller/grant writter/community developer/pastor who doesn’t seek to reconcile his existence, but instead find comfort in the tension.

So I have been thinking about homosexuality recently. I find in discussions about Christianity and the appropriate response to homosexuality, there are never easy conversations. It is rare to find someone who agonizes over the issue without first pre-judging the various camps. That being said, I must admit I am undecided. First, I have found scripture is not as clear as we would like it to be. Second, there is the human factor – it is impossible to flesh out an understanding of the issue in a vacuum with interacting with the real people and real consequences of your decisions. I find this youtube video helpful in reminding us of the human side:

For now, I can affirm the trajectory of redemptive history that seems to err on the side of inclusion.  What that means, I am not yet sure.

Stations of the Cross

• Flash version Facilitated by Father David Ward
• Walkthrough of the 14 classic images of the Stations of the Cross

Lectio Divina

•  Intro to Lectio Divina – great resource for individual or group practice.

Labyrinths

• Information about the Labyrinth at Christ Episcopal in Bowling Green
• Information about the Labyrinth at First Christian in Bowling Green
• Labyrinth Finder – This is provided by the Labyrinth Society which has great resources on labyrinths.

The modern church has dedicated itself to finding and offering answers when at times I think the question as a whole needs to be revised, or added to.  To overly compartmentalize: Baptists are asking “how is a person saved” [or at times, simply “how do I keep from going to hell”].  Mega churches are asking “How do we reach the most people” [or at times, simply “how can we get more people in our doors”].  Traditional liberals are asking “How can we be agents of social change” [or at times, “how can we make everyone feel good about themselves”].

***obviously I am being a bit simplistic and perhaps a tad cynical, but you get the point***

The problem is that Methodists (and mainline churches in general) aren’t really sure what question to ask.  All of the above questions have merit, but none of them seem to ring entirely true.  So then, what question(s) should we be asking?  I tend to think a good way to determine that is to look at Jesus.  Throughout his life he gave a few examples of “mission statements” which really point to the questions he was asking.  For example:  “I have come that they may have life and have it abundantly” -or- “I have come to seek and save the lost” -or- “to preach good news to the poor, proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”  If you put all that together, I think Jesus was asking “How do I bring about the Kingdom of God?”

So what happens when our churches start asking this as the primary question?  I think all of the above get answered!  We begin to understand the gospel as something holistic that keeps in tension salvation for the here and now as well as salvation for eternity.  I think it inseparably links discipleship with the ministry of reconciliation.  I think it moves us from an individual understanding of Christianity and salvation into a communal understanding of it.  It also forces us to be an centrifugal church: the dominate force is out from the center.  The only time Jesus asked people to come to him was to a.) minister to them or b.) help him minister to others.

The look and feel and atmosphere of our churches is a direct reflection of the questions they are primarily asking.  There has been tons of research into systems theory and the bulk of it tells us that systems always produce what they were designed to produce.  The problem is they are not always designed like we think they are.

The future of your church and my church, and honestly most of Methodism, is going to be determined by how we understand the role of the church.  I love the question that Rob Bell poses:  If your church were removed from your neighborhood, would anyone besides members notice?  Wow, how is that for convicting.  What is also illustrates is that besides the need to revise our questions, we must also revise our metrics – those things by which we measure the success of the church.

At many churches the numbers we look at are Sunday worship, offering, conversions, and attendance at various other programs.  Don’t get me wrong, those are important because it does show the breadth of our reach, but tell me, does it really measure how well we are bringing about the Kingdom?  The shift to postmodern thinking focuses more on qualitative data than quantitative data.  That is frustrating to those of us entrenched in modernity; however, I can’t help but believe it leads to a better understanding of the impact of a church.  Brian McLaren talks about the need to count conversations rather than conversions.  I think that too is a bit simplistic, but it really forces us to look at things differently.

I believe the church will thrive when it is released from confines of Sunday-centrism.  My wife and I are investigating some intentional community options with other couples (similar to Simple Way in Philly and Communality in Lexington).  Where we stand now, I feel called to go here because I believe it is where I can best minister to the community.  Obviously not everyone can take the step of selling their home to live in a neighborhood with the expressed desire to change “the forgotten places of the Empire” (12 Marks of new monasticism language).  However, I hope that our churches can allow this to be a part of their ministry.  That is what I am struggling with now.  I am ready to sell everything I have to be with the poor and marginalized, I just hope that I can do that because I am Christian connected to the Methodist church rather than in spite of the fact.

We all have lots of questions to ask and I am afraid it is going to lead us to some uncomfortable places.  I however have come to the place where I can no longer go about church as usual.

Let me know your thoughts.

-bk

I had the opportunity to present at a session of the Kentucky Annual Conference of Methodism this past week. During one of our lunch break out sessions, I was a part of a conversation on “Emerging Ministries.” With our denomination in its fourth decade (!!) of decline, people are worried about the future and the near complete lack of 20-30 year olds shows there is reason for concern.

So what is the answer? I will submit to you this: We need to be less concerned about the answers until we start asking the right questions. That is where I believe the emerging church holds promise: not with answers, but with questions.

If church ask the question “How do we get 20 and 30 somethings into our doors?” I believe we will fail miserable. Instead, we should inquire “What questions are these new generations asking?” This generation is no longer primarily asking “How do I get to heaven when I die?” or “What church is best for me?” Instead, we find a generation who is asking things like:

• What does salvation look like here on earth?
• How can we experience holistic worship and restoration?
• What does it mean to pray ‘Thy Kingdom come?’
• Where can I find authentic community?

These questions are more than just a shift in focus, they are a shift in thinking. This postmodern generation now thinks narratively in a non-lineal fashion and approaches issues holistically. Spiritual restoration cannot happen apart from physical and emotional restoration.

To say these things is not to deny the importance of other’s questions. I am convinced that disagreements in the church are less about different answers once we realize the questions we each are asking.

Here are the first set of pictures from our Freedom Day:

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=1369&l=c932b&id=504187490

http://wku.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2074349&l=59ff1&id=41116538

Use the following links to contact  people in power to let them know you are concerned about the labor practices in the chocolate industry.  Ask them to pursue Fair Trade designations and to pass legislation that will combat human trafficking on all fronts:

State Legislature:

• Senate District 32- Senator Brett Guthrie (R)
  
• House District 22 – Representative Rob Wilkey (D)
  
• House District 20 – Representative Jody Richards (D)
  
• House District 21 – Representative Jim DeCesare (R)
  
• House District 23 – Representative Johnny Bell (D)
  
• Contact the Governor

National Legislature:

• U.S. Senator Jim Bunning
• Senator Mitch McConnell – Contact Form
• Contact your Congressperson in the U.S. House of Representatives
• House Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight
• Senate Foreign Relations subcommittees

“Big Chocolate”

• Contact Us – HERSHEY’S
• Nestlé – Contact Us