When news of Hugo Chavez’s death was first released, some people broke out their party hats. More than 200 patrons of El Arepazo, a Venezuelan restaurant outside of Miami, celebrated late into the night. Jim Treacher of The Daily Caller penned a column entitled, “Buh-Bye, Hugo Chavez,” saying, “The Vice President [of Venezuela] claims Chavez’s cancer was induced by his enemies … I don’t know about you guys, but I’m happy to take credit.” And under a giant picture of Hugo Chavez’s face, the editors at the Drudge Report posted the following caption: “HELL’S A-BURNING.”

They weren’t the only ones. Some Christians joined in too, using Twitter to announce their jubilation.

Todd Starnes is a Fox News Radio Commentator who is an outspoken Christian. He formerly served as assistant editor for Baptist Press and Communications Director for Union University, a Christian college in Jackson, Tennessee. He sent several tweets including one that said, “Hugo dead. The good news is now Saddam, Osama and Adolf have a fourth for Canasta” and “Hell is burning a little bit brighter tonight.”

Starnes says “he seeks to help the cause of Jesus through his work.”

Loren Heal of the Heartland Institute, who describes himself as a “logical Christian,” tweeted, “A moment of silence [for] Hugo Chavez. OK, I spent my moment picturing you enjoying hell, jackass.”

And we wonder why many non-believers think Christians are judgmental and hateful?

Sadly, even some Christian pastors responded in kind. One student minister at Christian church tweeted a link to a story about his death adding, “The world is BETTER OFF!” He also retweeted a snarky note from the leader of a faith-based advertising agency, which said, “Sympathies to Danny Glover, Sean Penn and President Obama in the loss of Hugo Chavez.”

I can’t help wondering what kind of students this ministry is producing. Is this what we can expect from the future leaders of American evangelicalism?

While Hugo Chavez was alive, he was one of the world’s most polarizing figures. He declared a socialist revolution in his country, and his administration was notoriously corrupt. Though poverty rates in Venezuela were cut in half during the populist’s time in power, he made a name for himself as a heavy-handed dictator and America hating socialist. The man is now dead at 58 years old, two years after being diagnosed with cancer, an event which leaves Christians wondering how we should respond.

CONTINUE READING…

[ad name=”a-faith-of-you-own”]

Rob Bell, author of the controversial book Love Wins (and now, Love Wins for Teens) has released the new book trailer for his forthcoming project, What We Talk About When We Talk About God. The trailer brushes up against three hot button topics for Christians–women in ministry, homosexuality, and origins of life–which are sure to be dealt with more fully in the actual book. In other words, this book will likely create a stir among the faithful much like his last one did. Take a look and see what you think:

[ad name=”a-faith-of-you-own”]

Scott McClellan, 30, is Communications Pastor at Irving Bible Church and former director of the Echo Conference. He is one of the foremost Christian voices on effective communication and is releasing his first book, Tell Me a Story: Finding God and Ourselves Through Narrative (Moody Publishers). In it, he shares what comprises a good story and how we can begin living better ones. Building on Psalm 107:2, which states, “Let the redeemed of the Lord tell their story …”, makes the case for every Jesus-follower to impact the lives of others by telling their own story of redemption.

JM: The concept of story has come into the Christian evangelical lexicon in recent years by other authors like John Eldredge and Don Miller. What’s your take on it?

SM: I think both Eldredge and Miller do a wonderful job of identifying the elements of story and exploring the ways in which God seems to have woven those elements into the fabric of life. My take goes something like this: We’re both created and called to be storytellers. When Jesus told his disciples they would be his witnesses, he was calling them to be storytellers in his service. We might even say the book of Acts is the account of how the gospel went out and the church was born as the apostles lived out their narrative calling. As storytellers, we see life and all it entails—God, self, purpose, work, conflict, community, culture—through a narrative frame that lends context and perspective to our circumstances. That, along with scenes from my own life, is what Tell Me a Story is all about.

JM: We live in a Post-Enlightenment age in which people no longer deploy the techniques of rational thought, according to Neal Gabler in the New York Times. In what ways is this beneficial to story and narrative?  Is story the next generation’s best chance of impacting lives?

SM: I hesitate to invoke the example of the Civil Rights movement and the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. but I’m going to do it anyway. Here goes: racial inequality in 20th-century America was many things, but pertinent to this question is the fact that racial inequality was irrational. It was irrational then, but it’s especially irrational now as we look back upon the 1950s and 1960s with the gift of hindsight. But here’s the thing: rational thought was never going to suddenly win the day and persuade irrational thought to leave town. What we needed was a movement.

I dare say rational thought rarely sparks a movement. Rather, I think it’s one of story’s particular gifts that sparks movements: imagination. In his book Start With Why, Simon Sinek makes the case that Dr. King was not a tactician. Dr. King didn’t have a plan or a logical argument, he had a dream. See, rational thought can analyze and extrapolate, but it can’t imagine a bright future and compel us toward it. That’s what story does. That’s what storytellers do. To the extent that we can imagine and tell a story of hope and new life in Christ to our peers, we can impact lives.

JM: In what ways can narrative and story have a downfall (as you discuss in this post)?

SM: Storytellers are faced with particular temptations. There’s the temptation to artificially heighten drama or the temptation to paint people as spotless heroes and sinister villains. We might also be lured by tidy, three-act arcs. The reality, of course, is that life rarely fits into the clean lines of a storyboard. So, the underlying temptation for storytellers is that the truth isn’t good enough. People of faith ought to know better, but we’re tempted nonetheless. Should we give into that temptation, should we forsake the truth for something we consider more entertaining, we’re essentially forsaking the ultimate pursuit—to tell stories that people believe.

JM: We’re also in an increasingly visual culture, especially among the young. How can we share the beauty of a narrative-driven faith in that context?

SM: I’m reminded of one of the most important maxims in filmmaking: “Show, don’t tell.” Film is a visual medium, of course, and so it’s incumbent upon cinematic storytellers to use the strengths of the medium to capture the audience. Ultimately, I think this is about more than being visual; it’s about being experiential. A narrator can tell the audience that the protagonist is kind and gentle, or the filmmaker can show the protagonist being kind and gentle to puppies and small children. The difference between telling and showing is the difference between information and story.

In the same way, we can tell people that God loves them. Or we can show them the grace of God through the stories we’ve lived in the past and are living in the present. Again, it’s the difference between information and story. Yes, we’re more likely to be influenced by what we see with our own eyes than by the propositions of authorities and institutions. As such, we’re presented with the opportunity to live stories that bear witness to the powerful, redemptive love of God. Those kinds of stories are the best apologetic we have to offer our 21st-century world.

JM: The idea of story can seem intangible. What are some practical/concrete ways become a storyteller?

Perhaps Psalm 107:2 is instructive: “Let the redeemed of the Lord tell their story …”

The best place for any of us to start is with our own story, and especially the redemptive arc therein. If you don’t know your own story, or if you’ve never thought of your life on those times, for goodness sake it’s time to start. Your friends, family, and neighbors don’t need an elaborate gospel presentation constructed with spiritual laws and airtight apologetics. When we who follow Christ tell the stories of how God has redeemed us, those stories tend to be shaped like this:  Who we were, who we are in Christ, and who we’re becoming. I think that’s a practical place to start, and I think that’s a story worth telling.

Former pastor Rob Bell rocked the evangelical world nearly two years ago with the release of his book Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. Though Bell was no stranger to controversy at the time, nothing he’d said or done previously provoked the kind of reaction that this New York Times bestselling book did. By raising questions about traditional views on hell, he became the target of attacks by some conservative Christians and was heralded by more liberal ones as a theologian for the future. The furor even landed his ideas on the cover of TIME Magazine.

Now Rob Bell is back with a new book that releases on March 12 titled, What We Talk About When We Talk About God (HarperOne, $25.99).The book, which lacks a subtitle, is already causing evangelicals to squirm as they predict it will become the source of even more controversy. This remains to be seen. What we do know is that a  trailer has been released that seems to be as intentionally vague as the book’s title:

Some of Rob critics believe that he now lacks influence with mainstream evangelicals, but I disagree. His book is pre-selling well and I can’t imagine that all orders are coming from fringe liberal Christians and the non-religious. I believe he still holds sway with a sizable number of mainstream evangelicals, which is why I have decided to explore the subject of his forthcoming book further. I’ve tentatively secured an exclusive interview with Rob that will run in this forum on March 13th if everything goes as planned. Take a moment to review the trailer and then let me know if you have any questions you’d like me to ask.

All suggested questions must be courteous and kind. No cheap shots, please.

At the end of The Godfather Part II, Michael Corleone famously remarked, “If anything in life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it’s that you can kill anybody.” America’s current drone policy has made the fictitious mobster look like a prophet.

The Bush administration began using the nimble humanless aircrafts, authorizing about 50 non-battlefield drone strikes. This paved the way for what we’re now witnessing. Of course, the Obama administration has taken this to a whole new bloody level. The President has authorized five times as many drone strikes leaving nearly 4,000 dead.

Ethicists and public policy experts have decried the many problems of such a policy. For example, a drone is a weapon of war often used in countries that America is not at war with. In Yemen alone, our government has authorized 50 drone strikes since 2009. These have resulted in the death of approximately 400 people, including 80 civilians. Last time I checked, America is not at war with Yemen. Yet we continue to wage war within the borders of that sovereign nation (as well as Pakistan, Somalia, and others).

As Christian ethicist David Gushee points out, this illustrates both American arrogance and the double standards under which we often operate:

The United States would never accept it if another militarily sophisticated country-China or Russia come to mind-developed a policy in which they routinely launched “targeted” attacks on our soil seeking the deaths of those they identified as “imminent threats” to their national security, accidentally killing innocent Americans on a regular basis.

Hard to disagree with that.

These sorts of attacks damage American relations with other nations and serve to intensify anti-American sentiments abroad. In other words, we continue to create the problems we’re asking our military forces to “deal with.”

Justification for the policy is that they are better than the alternatives. As some have argued, “they’re the worst form of war, except for all others. Such assertions are at least partially true. But drone strikes create many unique problems that traditional warfare does not.

For example, NYU student Josh Begley has been tweeting every reported U.S. drone strike since 2002. His feed highlights a disturbing tactic used by Americans that is widely considered a war crime. The tactic is called the “double tap,” and it involves bombing a target multiple times in quick succession. Subsequent strikes often kill medical personnel and other first responders.

Worse still, the Obama Administration has now authorized the use of drones to kill American citizens abroad so long as an “informed, high-level official” determines that the citizen presents an “imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”  The criteria is maddeningly vague, and according to the administration, it is not subject to external review. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states that “No person shall be . . . deprived of life . . . without due process of law.” Yet this administration has decided it should act as judge, jury, and executioner without any checks or balances to guard against executive branch abuses.

Some argue that the so-called “war on terror” is a unique kind of war and requires new rules. America needs to protect its national security at whatever cost, they say. This reasoning is a security blanket for those who fear they may not be otherwise safe but it is problematic, particularly for Christians. As Gushee comments:

The Christian moral tradition treats war as at best a last resort and requires threshold tests before accepting the tragic moral necessity of occasional resort to war. There is reason to be concerned that our self-perception of being in an endless war on terror has broken the “last resort” trigger mechanism. If we are in a permanent state of war than we no longer need to justify the use of force in any particular venue. We have a permanent pass on all the war-threshold tests and can fire away at anyone who poses an “imminent threat of violent attacks against the United States,” even low-level functionaries in the Yemeni desert. 

A drone is a weapon of war being used in countries that America is not at war with. To claim that we are in a unique war situation with modern terrorism fails to address the moral inconsistencies of our actions or present us with a sustainable framework for moving forward. Instead, it allows our government to continue waging a shadow war with numbers of casualties that are kept secret.

This is, of course, a complex issue and will not be solved now in this forum. We need a serious debate about the moral implications of American policy and whether or not it lives up to the values and ideals we claim to cherish. So why aren’t we having such a public discussion right now? The answer, it seems, is partisanship.

Liberals decried the “Bush doctrine” for being heavy-handed in national defense. They protested the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They objected to waterboarding and rendition, claiming that America shouldn’t stoop to such lows, even in the interest of national security.  But the anti-war movement that rattled White House windows during the latter years of the Bush administration basically disappeared when Obama was elected. The war didn’t, but the protest did.

“I’m amazed that so few Americans — most notably, so few liberals — have protested his secretive remote-control assassination program,” writes Dick Polman in the Miami Herald.

When it comes to the Obama administration’s drone strike policy, many liberals have kept their mouths shut. Apparently, killing is different when a Democrat is pulling the trigger.

On the other side of the aisle, conservatives—and particularly conservative Christians—are suddenly outraged. My twitter feed has been dotted with cutting remarks from Christian pastors, leaders, and armchair politicos venting their frustrations at Obama’s drone policy. Few seem to remember that President Bush began the program with barely a Christian murmur. So while these conservatives were chaplains of the status quo for two unbroken terms, they are now apparently incensed.

The drone debate, insofar as it is actually happening, highlights the moral hypocrisy of both sides. This issue and many like it will not be resolved until we first find a solution to the blind partisanship that saturates our halls of power. Such a state of affairs is frustrating under any circumstance, but it is exceptionally loathsome when others are dying as a result.

[ad name=”a-faith-of-you-own”]

On April 30^th, 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. gave a speech at New York’s Riverside Church. It was one of his finest, and would later earn him a spoken word Grammy. The primary topic of his address was not the plight of black men and women or even race in general. No, that day his speech was entitled, “Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam.” In it, he offered a profound nugget of truth:

Let me say finally that I oppose the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against this war, not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and, above all, with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as the moral example of the world. I speak out against this war because I am disappointed with America. And there can be no great disappointment where there is not great love. 

As King points out with characteristic eloquence, disappointment is not rooted in disdain or despair. It grows from the fertile soil of love. When we love someone, we are able to see the best parts of them, even when it appears sullied by the dirt of their worst attributes. Because we love, we believe that they can be better and do better.

What is true for external expressions of disappointment is also true internally. I think of John the Baptist, the Biblical paragon whose earmark message was, “Repent for the Kingdom of God is near.” It was a difficult sermon to swallow growing up, and a portion of scripture I often rushed past focusing instead on the birth of Christ. Who doesn’t prefer singing Christmas carols to confessing sin? But perhaps my difficulty in swallowing John’s sermon was rooted in an incomplete understanding of repentance.

CONTINUE READING…

The glitter has been swept up, the borrowed jewelry returned, and star-struck fans are left to process all that transpired last night. Another Grammy Awards has come and gone, but they raise an important question for American Christians in the 21^st century:

What does it mean to follow Jesus in a celebrity-obsessed age?

In recent years, most Christians have uncritically embraced celebrity.  Many—particularly evangelicals—have even incorporated it into their faith. That’s why we have so many “celebrity pastors” like Joel Osteen, John Piper, Rob Bell, and Joyce Meyer whose ministries make believers act like “Beliebers.” We hang on their every word, buy the swag they sell at conferences, and crave to know the intricacies of their personal lives.

Perhaps even more telling are the Christian celebrities who, like their secular counterparts, are known exclusively for the followings they’ve conjured up in pseudo-worlds like Facebook and Twitter. This breed of superstars represent, in the words of Daniel Boorstin, a kind of individual whose “chief claim to fame is their fame itself.” They are well known for being well known.

The Bible speaks very little about celebrity—books don’t typically answer questions their culture isn’t asking—but it provides us with principles for processing this phenomenon. Virtues like selflessness and sacrifice are replete in the Christian scriptures, but rarely celebrated on the latest award shows. Instead, we’re left with surrogates like pride and raw ambition. Additionally, our celebrity obsessions often seek to fill the deep longings of our souls that only faith can truly satiate. The characteristically human compulsions toward community, glory, worship, and significance are given brief satisfaction through fame but can never fully or permanently meet these needs.

As cultural commentator Craig Detweiler notes, stardom even attempts to meet our longing for eternity:

I think the fault is that fame and celebrity enter the highest virtue in culture. It’s the closest thing to getting to heaven or eternal life. In other words, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley are all eternal in pop culture, and so becoming a celebrity is the closest thing to eternal life outside the Church. I see a hunger for celebrity as a hunger for eternity.

So what does all this mean for Jesus followers?

CONTINUE READING…

[ad name=”a-faith-of-you-own”]

David Campbell is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame and co-author (with Robert Putnam) of American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. The book is an enlightening read and I highly recommend it. Here, Campbell talks about politics and the future of American Christianity.

JM: Based on current trends, how will the Church look differently in 25 or 50 years? 

DC: First off, I doubt that we will speak of a singular “Church,” which is probably a misnomer even now. The story of religion in America is one of constant innovation—often by individual pastors—as they find their own niche in the wildly diverse religious ecosphere. While the current trends suggest continued disaffection from religion, as the ranks of the “nones” (non-adherents) keep growing, history suggests that we should not assume this trend will continue unabated. I suspect that religious innovators will find ways to win some of those nones back. How exactly they will do that, I do not know. Indeed, there probably will not be a single formula. I doubt that anyone in the 1960s would have predicted the success of the megachurch as an organizational form for churches.

Whatever the specifics, I suspect that successful churches will find new ways to talk about homosexuality, especially since young people are highly supportive of gay rights (including, but not limited to, same-sex marriage).  Or perhaps they will stop talking about homosexuality altogether.

JM: You say that one of the reasons young people have left the Church is that it’s too partisan. What can the Church do to reclaim young people? 

DC: The quick and easy answer (for a political scientist, anyway) is to simply say, “Stop being so partisan.” But, alas, it is not so easy. Many religious leaders would no doubt say that they are not political at all, and in a narrow sense they are right. Even during an election season, relatively few churchgoing Americans report hearing explicitly political sermons, or encountering other overt political activity at church. Rather, many young people associate religion with politics—and specifically, the Republican party—because of how religion is used by political leaders, and not only because of how politics is used by religious leaders. If religious leaders are concerned that their “brand” has become synonymous with the Republican Party, the solution is to ensure that religion ceases to be co-opted by one side of the political aisle. This would require religious voices to studiously avoid politicking. When they feel called to speak out on public issues, they should be just as willing to offend the right as the left.

CONTINUE READING…

[ad name=”a-faith-of-you-own”]

When the Obama administration announced mandatory coverage of contraceptives in January of last year as part of sweeping healthcare reform, religious conservatives were incensed. Roman Catholics were angry because the church prohibits use of birth control, even though most congregants ignore the teaching. Evangelicals were upset because religious non-profits were not exempt from the mandate, which also covers drugs that induce abortions. The two faith communities found themselves to be valuable allies.

In response, the administration announced an accommodation for faith-based nonprofits that would not require those organizations to pay for the coverage. Instead, employees could attain private, stand-alone policies from third parties that provide the same services at no cost. Religious leaders responded by calling the concession an “accounting gimmick,” claiming that organizations would end up paying for contraception anyway through raised premiums.

Now the President has announced another round of revisions, perhaps quickened by judicial pressures resulting from lawsuits. The new rules broaden the number of organizations who can “opt out” of the mandated coverage. Faith-based hospitals and universities who object for religious reasons would no longer be forced to provide coverage.

Religious conservatives have predictably shrugged off the announcement. Judie Brown of the American Life League said that the Obama administration continues “to treat our country’s conscience like a jailer.” Even the level-headed Michael Gerson called it a “parlor trick” in The Washington Post.

In USA Today, writer Tom Krattenmaker countered that the debate really isn’t about religious freedom:

Given the swift and hostile reaction by many in the Christian Right gallery, you have to wonder why the president and his people bothered extending this olive branch. Has it ever been clearer that the culture warriors are more interested in a fight than a compromise solution, or that complaints about religious freedom under attack are greatly overblown?

As evidence that evangelicals’ care more about cultural dominance than religious freedom, Krattenmaker points to a new survey from the Barna Group. While 71% of evangelicals say they are “very concerned” about the restriction of their religious freedoms, the study also said a majority believe that Judeo-Christian values deserve preference in our country. In other words, conservative Christians seem to care mostly about protecting a particular kind of religious freedom: their own.

Barna President David Kinnaman said the data showed a “double standard” and said “they cannot have it both ways.”

With this in mind, Krattenmaker said,

Conservative Christian cries of “religious liberty” violations often are, in truth, complaints about the decline in conservative Christian power and prerogatives in an America that is growing ever more religiously diverse.

I find myself torn on the matter. On the one hand, I agree with the 63% of Americans who believe that increased access to contraception is a good thing. It has been shown to lead to a decline in abortions, and as a pro-life evangelical, that is positive. On the other hand, I oppose the use of abortion-causing drugs and I’m troubled that our government has lumped these into the category of “contraception” when they seem to be something altogether different.

The religious beliefs of houses of worship and faith-based nonprofits must be protected. Indeed, they must be if we wish to promote and protect religious liberty, which is one of our most beloved liberties. At the same time, we cannot expect the government to offer for-profit companies–even those with religious roots–identical treatment. We are a country of laws and companies like retail giant Hobby Lobby cannot sidestep abiding by the laws of our land, whatever those may be. The same would be true, for example, if a retail chain with liberal Christian views wanted to withhold the portion of their taxes used to fund what they believe is an unjust war.

This debate is predictably messy, and religious Americans must grow comfortable wading through complex issues such as this one. As we wrestle over how to best preserve religious freedom in an increasingly pluralistic society, the faithful can expect to have these sorts of rigorous debates with increasing frequency.

[ad name=”a-faith-of-you-own”]

Two years ago, I met two friends who make beautiful music together. Their names were Amanda and Abner but when their voices met acoustic guitar, they called themselves “Johnnyswim.” As I heard them play original songs, I was drawn into the melodies and lyrics. It was truly some of the best music I’d ever heard.

I was pumped to see them perform at the Catalyst Conference this past October. The conference theme was MAKE and Johnnyswim wrote an original song just for the event (sorry, it is not yet available). As apart of their performance, they produced a short video on how they write music. I wanted to copy it below and then encourage you to go buy their stuff on iTunes. Like, RIGHT NOW. You won’t regret it. My favorite song is “You’re Not Gonna Leave Me Here” but their new EP “Home” is a must-have.