Jordan Voges

There are three things that stick out the most when it comes to describing the festival of beginnings: the music, the teachings, and the people.  The opening hymn was that great German song A Mighty Fortress is Our God.  This was sung during the procession of the student leaders and professors and faculty as they entered into the BEC.  Regardless of where one stands on the hymn, it was a sight and a sound to behold walking into a large space populated by all sorts and shapes and colors declaring or standing the declaration that God is a mighty fortress.  After that came the first teaching by way of a group reading composed of various scripture excerpts from Ephesians 4 and Psalm 46.  Again, the weaving together of the two readers, the leader, and the entirety of the congregation present appeared to be as a unified declaration of the truths communicated in scripture centered around the strength and refuge of God.  Next came a reading from Isaiah 40:1 and Matthew 11:25-30.  After this came the hymn Greet the Rising Sun as accompanied by an Asian instrument and instrumentalist alongside the large pipe organ of the BEC, the first verse being sung by a soloist and the next verses being completed by the group as a whole.  Then came President Ries's sermon (homily) entitled Our Refuge and Strength.  He spoke at length about the definition of the two prominent words from Psalm 46.  After him was the recognition of the 2012-2013 student leaders and new faculty members.  Finally was the hymn O God, Our Help in Ages Past.

                If the description of the events seemed lacking let that not be a put off.  Instead, let one's focus rest on the matter of interpretation of the events.  The was the obvious intent to welcome in all those leaders who were new, but beneath the surface, it was also a welcoming to the new Concordia community.  This community changes every year with inflowing freshmen and outgoing seniors and super seniors.  Yet on a more theological note, one cannot help but see in this a great example of how the world changes.  Like the changing waves of the ocean are the relationships on this earth and plenty often to people find themselves being slammed against the rocks of contention and sin.  What better ground on which to pronounce the truth that God is the refuge and strength of His peoples.  President Ries hit home by reminding those present that God is the refuge in the times of despair.  Like a ship being ravaged by the ocean of life and sin and doubt, God, in His good will, brings the ship into a safe port.  At the same time, He is the strength of His people.  He grants them courage and weapons with which to go out and face the day (by His word and sacraments?).  Although President Ries says that these two happen at different times, refuge during struggle and strength when the time comes to go out and face the day (which is completely valid), one could also argue that these two occur at the very same time.  One only dare the seas when one believes that their boat is refuge enough and one only face an army when they are convinced that their armor is refuge from the heat of battle.  So, too, is the life of a Christian in Christ.  They are refuged, always, in the everlasting arms of God while they are called to go out and live their lives loving their neighbor.  God acts as their armor put on in baptism and by the Lord's supper and by these things does He grant them strength to go out and fight the good fight.

                I do wish that I had a bigger attention span but to be honest, my mind has been scattered over a great many things that last few weeks.  This was a beautiful service and being able to describe it and interpret it properly would be a great tool and one that I am lacking in at this early time in the year.  However, this is my section where I get to explain myself a little bit.  From personal experience, I found it a lovely service, from being a student "leader" this year, I found it encouraging to know that I was in the presence of so many ambitious people, from being a part of the service itself, I found it amazing to know that I was part of a group.  I know that not everyone there was a believer, but I do know that believers were present.  I also know that where they are, so, too, is the Church and Christ.  God has given the Church as a refuge and strength here on earth so that we might comfort and encourage one another.  Just last night I had a longwinded lovely discussion with my friend Alex Wright.  We encouraged one another and we acted as a shelter from the uncertainties of life, being able to let out the frustration within our minds.  Today, at Emmaus Lutheran Church I was given communion by Dr. Trapp, a man I greatly respect and I got to sit next to my friends and hear everyone sing (though not necessarily in the right octave in my own case ;) ).  These people are a refuge to me and a strength to me.  But I admit, they would all fail me given time.  However, there is One who's refuge and strength will never fail me.  He is a mighty fortress, He guides me from the rise of the sun till the darkness of night, He is my help from ages past.  I believe being reminded of these things was a good way to start off the year.  (Dr. Schuler, I apologize if this was not very well put together.  I'll do better next time!)

I must be honest that I didn't know how to introduce this analysis of the book UnChristian.  It was a difficult read in how it was written to cover a wide variety of topics with a shotgun blast of diagnosis and prescription.  What made it harder were the theological errors that crept in (as far as my non-impressive expertise could flesh out).  When a conclusion on the part of Kinnaman could lead me into a theological discussion for extended periods of time it was near impossible to concentrate on any one assertion without leaching into another and recovering bases as the book went on.  For that fact, I apologize to the reader.  I criticize Kinnaman for not making sense on at least one occasion and yet I fear my own paragraphs may not flow.  I am a hypocrite and, for the sake of transparency must admit that my ego got in the way plenty of times.  Many more than you will be able to note.  As did my hard headedness.  Yet for my many mistakes and biases, I am confident that this blog post accurately conveys major discussion points that must be scrutinized for the sake of every Christian and non-Christian out there.  Without further to do, I present my analysis of UnChristian.

People see Christians as hypocrites for many reasons yet notably because people who claim to be Christian and to teach and preach sound, Biblical doctrine, often live out, teach, and preach hypocritical false doctrine.  Kinnaman focuses on how society sees the moral aspect of what the world has defined as Christianity.  They see Roman Catholics preaching that same sex marriage is wrong and that the value of human life and liberty are at the apex of Christian morality only to watch the news of yet another victim in the sex crimes of sinful priests.  They hear one pastor preach about how Christianity is a religion of moral humbleness where one gives what one has to the needy, even as Christ gave His life for a needy world, only for a televangelist to get rich off of the ignorance and lack of spiritual education that plagues many people today.  People see the condemnation of (insert addiction here) and yet time and time again do pastors and parishioners fall into its web of chaos only to become a front page story in the local news.  Yet this hypocrisy often comes from something that they don't see and is even more damnable.  This error, which this author (Jordan Voges) would deem as the worst kind as so much false teaching has spread from it, is the mingling, mixing up, and misuse of law and gospel.  In fact most of the problems identified by Kinnaman and most, if not all, of the mistakes made by Kinnaman in this book can be traced back to this issue.  It is important, therefore, to define some terms.  In specific; law and gospel.

                Put simply the law states that humans are in a broken relationship with God (i.e. damned on account of the fall) and that that relationship can be mended by perfectly doing all the things necessary such as obeying the ten commandments perfectly etc.  Yet the law, with all of its demands, gives no means by which one may satisfy it, and therefore causes one to realize that one cannot fulfill the law and cannot save one's self from hell.  The gospel, by contrast, asserts that God, to whom the debt was owed, took the debt upon Himself and did what could not be done by humanity.  Namely by living a perfect life free of sin, dying on the cross and effectively taking the sins of the world with Him, then rising on the third day to assure those in Christ that their justification is obtained.  As Christ was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven, so, too, shall all those in Christ.  None of this depends on the sinner, who can neither add nor take away from his or her forgiveness in Christ.  These teachings are found in the entirety of scripture.  One has but to look at those verses which make demands to see the law and one has but to look at any of the promises of God to see the gospel.  An example of properly distinguishing the two is to say, "By grace a sinner is saved and brought to life without choice or action and that their new life bears fruit in accordance with its nature."  The gospel is that forgiveness is granted by promise and rests solely on Christ.  The law can be found in the bearing of fruit for although a Christian, in this life certainly bears fruit, if one simply looks in the mirror at the end of the day, one finds all the horrible mistakes done and left undone even in light of the fruit.  The fruit all the more magnifies what  is lacking and causes one to fall, again and again, back on the gospel of being saved by grace.  To mingle the two, one has only to say, "Make a decision for Jesus and He will forgive you all your sins."  The law is mingled with gospel by putting the fulfillment of the gospel promises (namely the forgiveness of our sins) back on human shoulders (by saying it rests on the decision).  Another way of distorting law and gospel is to add promises to the gospel which are not actually given by God.

                When it comes to this sort of hypocrisy, one can turn to people such as Rick Warren and his book The Purpose Driven Life.  For there, the promises of God, peace, joy, life, etc. (eternal peace with God, eternal joy in Christ, objective life in the Spirit) are both defined in worldly terms of joy and peace and life (such as the subjective joy of meaning, having a peace within, and living abundantly) and fulfilled by earthly action.  This then places an incalculable burden on the sinner and has them scrambling, not only for eternity, but also for false promises.  If one takes the word of Warren and believes his formulas to be true then what happens when they fail?  For a word of faith heretic like Joyce Meyer, they mingle law and gospel by saying that if one prays the right prayer enough or reads the right Bible passage or thinks the right thought, if one does the equation right, then the natural outcome is that one gets what one wants such as healing, either mentally or physically or relationally, or prosperity in a worldly sense, or freedom from addiction or a specific sin.  This also applies to many "charismatics" who say that if one believes enough then miracles will happen.  Yet what happens when someone dies a sinner?  What happens when a mental disorder gets worse?  What comfort is there when the miracles so longed for don't appear and one begins to doubt their salvation because, according to the equation, they clearly don't have enough faith?  Each person has made innumerable horrible, perverted, sinful decisions, so how can a "decision for Jesus" be any different?  Yet there are equally dangerous teachings out there which make the same mistakes.  Some replace the gospel promise with the world's definition of good news and states that one must follow such and such a guideline or one won't be accepting and affirming (in an earthly sense) and, therefore, unchristian.  Yet what hope is there in a world that is perishing?  This teaching, itself, is a lie which promises one thing and delivers another.  The list goes on and on.

                Why does this lead to hypocrisy?  When Christians define their faith by the preaching of such people as Rick Warren, they begin to look at the Bible as a set of equations to become better as human beings, to sin less, to get "closer and closer" to God, to feel more and more saved.  They create more and more laws for themselves to try to live by so that they can, as Dr. Trapp would say, "get the goodies".  Yet the more demands they place on themselves the more they seem to fail.  Therefore, when the world sees them trying so hard to meet such high demands yet not meeting them, they can easily enough call Christians hypocrites.  What's more, when those people who have thought that they held the catholic faith realize that their faith was only in something crumbling and failing, namely their own will and their shoulders and their trying and their feeling, they either deny it or despair and perhaps utterly give up and effectively deny the chance for true Christianity to shine through. 

                Kinnaman believes that this issue can be remedied by simply being transparent.  Transparency, as he defines it, is being open to the world and admitting that Christians are all sinners.  Although transparency is nice, he never truly calls his solution what it really, truly is: preaching and teaching sound, Biblical, doctrine.  He  harkens back to Paul with this idea as Paul admitted openly in 1Timothy 1:15, "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost."  The doctrine of what a Christian truly is, a saint and a sinner (simul justus et peccator), is best described, again by Paul, in Romans 7:19, "For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing."  Christians are sinners and continue to be until their day of death.  Any Christian who would deny this in its entirety, with all the implications that follow being sinful, is deceived.  This is a message of hope, however, because the sinner is also the saint completely redeemed and reconciled by the blood of Christ.  Therefore it no longer matters what they do.  They are saved by grace through faith which is not of their own self.  They could, in effect, sit on their couch eating Cheetos till kingdom come in as far as their salvation goes.  The strange thing is that they don't!  By nature (the nature of the saint, the New Adam) they seek to love their neighbor in this life.  They, like an apple tree, bear fruit of their life in Christ.  It isn't a process of becoming better and better or sinning less and less.  Better and better implies that there is something they need to achieve or that they are lacking something they need to attain by their will and to say less and less would be to deny they are sinful until their death.  Rather, Christian sanctification (which is what is being talked about here and what people like Rick Warren and Joyce Meyer and Joel Osteen seem to butcher to no end) is the process of a Christian realizing more and more what they already are in Christ, namely a perfect being who is washed by the pure grace of God.  It is the nature of the saint to love one's neighbor.  If they should sin less or do more right things then thanks be to God.  Let them strive for such hopes but let them always be reminded that they are not being perfected by the flesh or by their will but by the Spirit and the will of God.

                All of this is to say that a Christian is, by nature both a sinner, inclined to sin, and a saint, inclined to love their neighbor.  To profess true, Christian doctrine, then, would to be "transparent" and to admit that we Christians are horrible sinners.  It is also correct to profess that all Christians are living in Christ and therefore bear fruit.  If a Christian claims that they do not bear fruit, then it is a logical conclusion to question their salvation.  It is also valid to question the faith of someone who says that they can, by some equation of scripture or by some philosophy or action on their part, be freed from a sinful nature in this life with all its implications.  So to the priest who has committed horrid sexual atrocities, and to the pastor who has fallen into addiction, and to the congregant who has murdered or abused or cheated or abandoned, Christ came to forgive.  They have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and the wrong which they have done in their vocation is a grave and disturbing one.  However, it reveals to the masses the actual content of every human heart.  Still, we present the gospel of grace and pray that sinners be brought to faith in Christ bearing fruit in accordance with repentance. 

                Kinnaman also points out that Christians appear to be "agenda driven" and to be solely seeking after the conversion of all.  Again, this is a good point and it can be linked back to those who believe the Christian life, both coming to it and living in it, are only satisfied by equations on the part of the person.  If that is the case, then it is no wonder one can find so many churches trying to force these equations on other people.  They believe that they can convert the masses and that it is their responsibility to grow the Church and to gather the Flock of God.  This false theology, of everything resting on the person, is clearly identified by Kinnaman within the first few pages of the chapter.  He writes how it is not mass media that reaches out to people.  He describes how logical arguments fall short and how subjective experience has little value as well.  Kinnaman, instead, attempts to describe a respectful usage of God's word and a loving relationship with others in order to attempt influence.

Yet it seems that he falls short of actually solving the problem.  Perhaps this is because his Achilles heel is the same as that of those whom he condemns: decision theology.  He ruins his argument by placing the responsibility of conversion (this time of others) back on human shoulders.  The ultimate outcome of this sort of thinking ends up being the very problems he has identified such as agenda driven relationships.  This becomes most clear when he says in the second-to-last paragraph in the section titled "Changing Our Priorities" on page 83, "There is nothing more powerful than the Christian life lived out in obedience."  Here he is speaking about our ability to convert others.  He is, again, right to say that we are salt and light in the world.  But not salt and light that converts others.  Our salt tastes like Christ, and our light points to the cross, for if Christians have anything to boast of, be it power or abilities, they give all credit to and point toward Christ.  The truth is that God is most powerful and it is His responsibility to gather His Flock and to bring sinners to repentance and the forgiveness of sins.  When the goal of the Christian life becomes to convert people then it is agenda driven in a way that is truly un-Christian, but when it maintains that goal which Christ gave it, to love the neighbor, to forgive others as the Christian has been forgiven, to die for the sake of others, then it doesn't matter who is converted and who isn't.  Why, then, should Christians preach the gospel and evangelize?  It's good news!  What more can a Christian do than tell it on a mountain?  A Christian can certainly care about and pray for those who are not saved and certainly Christ speaks through His word and it is important for Christians to accurately present that word, but the Christian loves others because Christ first loved them, not because they believe that if they love someone enough they will be converted.  There can be found sincere relationships and kind conversation.  There, the pressure is no longer on the Christian to make sure they're saying the right thing so they can manage the maze of the other persons mind and get to the end which is conversion (for this sort of pressure causes despair seeing as how the Christian will fail).  Instead, and because it simply doesn't happen that way try as a person might, the pressure is from within the Christian to let the overflowing love of Christ, which is like a well-spring in them bursting forth, flow onto others, to eat with sinners, to doctor the sick, to give finance to the poor, to give aid to those in need.  When this Christian fails or makes a mistake, it is no longer a fear of condemnation that drives them to a dark place, but a faith which leans on the everlasting arm of the mercy of Christ that drives them to seek out how better to love their neighbor next time (or something like that).

This failure in properly understanding Christian doctrine is conveyed by Kinnaman in his including a message from Chuck Colson (found on page 86 through 88).  Colson mingles law and gospel by defining gospel as the Roman Catholics do.  He places mankind into the working of Christ and shows that, ironically, the main goal is to grow the Church by human actions, effectively, and once again, putting the responsibility and burden of the law on the Christian's chest to press them to death.  "If we are really living as Christians, the church expands exponentially." It does not take a genius to see that Colson is recommending Christianity fall into an agenda driven mentality, because the ultimate goal of his form of loving others is then to expand and grow the Church by exponents.  Paul, by contrast, writes to Timothy saying, "Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching." (2 Timothy 4:2)  True love is to preach the word and it is more than certainly a part of living as Christians, yet Paul admits that there are such times when the Church will shrink even while they exclaim the joy of these truths and this love.  If one were to follow Colson's logic then the Church shrinking is the responsibility of the flock.  So what happens when a church loses members?  What happens when a church is forced to close?  (assuming that these things haven't been caused by theological error, moral incontinence, inability on the pastors part, or a lack of Christian fellowship) It causes the Christian to despair and to question their belief and the grace of God.  They question if His gospel can actually save them.  They worry that God will condemn them.  However, if it is God who gives the growth to the Church and if it is the Shepherd who chooses to gather His flock, then thanks be to God it no longer rests in the sinful hands of men and women.  Then, if the churches dwindle, the faith still stands and a Christian can hold fast in the promise of Christ when He says to Peter, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)  The Church and her Saints are called to love their neighbor.  For preachers, that means proclaiming sound doctrine because it is through His word and His sacraments that the faith of His Saints is edified and this they do by nature.

The next issue was that of homosexuality.  This issue seems to have stemmed, again, from those who do not properly understand the place of law and gospel.  It could also be said that part of it is the world's disdain for sound doctrine, not only those supposedly within the Church.  When one sees such groups as the Westborough Baptist Church holding signs that say "God hate fags!" and many Christians convey what might be a special judgment passed on homosexuals by God then it's no wonder society has determined Christianity to be hateful concerning the matter of homosexuality. 

For the most part, what Kinnaman has to say about this issue is right and salutary.  He even quotes Bonhoeffer who says, "Nothing that we despise in the other man is entirely absent from ourselves.  We must learn to regard people less in light of what they do or don't do, and more in light of what they suffer." (one should apply this to themselves in the case of the Westborough Baptist Church as well) 

On the head, this sounds like and is good advice to Christians, however perhaps Bonhoeffer falls short.  Instead of seeing others through the light of what they suffer (which is part of it), a Christian looks at others through the eyes of the cross and what Christ suffered for a condemned world.  Dr. Tom Trapp says that a Christian has cross eyes, seeing others through the eyes of forgiveness.  They also have tomb vision, looking out of the tomb at the light of eternity streaming in.  Finally, they have holy blind spots which cover up the sins of the person's past, present, and future so that they live loving their neighbor and not in utter despair.

The homosexual is a sinner, just as any person is and equally in need of forgiveness.  The remedy for all sins and sinners, from the pervert, to the murderer, to the angry, to the selfish, to the bitter, to the doubter, to the depressed, to the sick, ultimately to the sinful is the cross.  Although a Christian is a sinner to the day they die, ambushed and besieged by a nature that hates and fears God, by the grace of God they are brought back into the relationship with God.  So what do Christians say to the world?  They say that homosexuality is a sin and is a perversion of nature.  So, too, are all sins.  Christians say to the world that there is forgiveness of sins found in a God who so loved the world that He gave His only Son so that whomsoever should believe in Him might not perish but have eternal life.  To the Westborough Baptist "Church", the true Church calls them to repentance for their sin of hatred and hypocrisy.  The true Church offers them the same forgiveness it offers to the homosexual and to the murder et al.  Shayne Wheeler, who's response was certainly lacking, did have a hint of that Good Theology when he quoted Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who said, "The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."  Everyone needs God.

The next thing discussed by Kinnaman was that of how Christians seem sheltered.  As to whether or not this fact in America is tied directly to law and gospel can only be speculated by this author, however, the mistakes Kinnaman makes in this chapter more than certainly pertain to those doctrines.  First, one has to agree with his diagnosis that the culture has deemed Christianity sheltered.  One need not look far to see someone who calls themselves Christian and acting foolish in the name of the faith.  Yet again, look at the Westborough Baptist Church or those street preachers with their imposing blow horns.  Even more common than this, however, is the utter lack of knowledge most Christians have about their own faith.  They have little to no form of catechetical education nor do they delve deep into the resounding truths of Biblical doctrine which one need not be a doctor to examine or to meditate on.  When questioned about their faith, many seem to rest on subjective experience and action and on philosophy given to them by a pastor whose goal isn't to feed the sheep but to grow the numbers.  Kinnaman was right to point out how this generation is one that takes "a pinch of this, a pinch of that".  This is a good reflection of what Nicholas Carr who compared the modern way of thinking to a jet ski skipping over the surface jumping from one exciting thing to another rather than being like a diver who takes her time to scrutinize and to examine, slowly, with quality.  So many have not lived out their vocation as Christians in that they are not ready to give a sound, Biblical response to those who ask (1 Peter 3:15).  To put it bluntly, with all the bad theology circulating around facebook and youtube it's no wonder so many Christians comes off sounding stupid.

Yet Kinnaman sees the answer to this problem through a perspective that may be misleading and hurtful to those of the Faith.  He says on page 131 that, "it's our duty to help remedy a broken world," yet is that truly what Christians are called to do?  Is that how Christians will show themselves informed?  In one sense, maybe, because a Christian loves their neighbor (sounding like a broken record yet?) and that remedies a lack of love and demonstrates a sort of awareness about the state of humanity.  Sadly, even that falls utterly short.  Instead, is it not Christ who remedies a broken world?  If it is the goal to become informed so that the responsibility of the Christian is to save the world, then that burden is infinitely too much.  However, if it's Christ's job, then what a firm foundation and what a great peace that is because it seems that whatever Christ sets out to do, He generally succeeds at.  What's left for the Christian, then, is to be informed to in order to love their neighbor. 

Also important to note is Kinnaman's use of the prophet Daniel on page 132.  Kinnaman tries to use him as an exemplar of how Christians should study and by preparing themselves they will work their way up the chain and become influential.  However, is that really how Daniel was made great?  Was it by His trying and striving?  Or was it, in fact, by the will and grace of God that Daniel became who he was?  It is important to look to Daniel and to compare him to the Church, but if there is any similarity, it is that the Church doesn't partake of worldly things because its King is not of this world yet it is out of love for the world that the Church educates itself and seeks to serve (as Daniel served king Nebuchadnezzar).  Also, it is by the grace of God that the Church becomes great and becomes small.  When the Church is thrown into the fiery furnace, it is not the striving nor toiling of the Church that keeps it from bursting into flames.  Instead, it is God.  For God stood by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and it was His presence and His will that saved them from the flame.

On page 132 Kinnaman says, "It is incumbent on us to develop our hearts and minds so that we can fulfill our destiny as agents of spiritual, moral, and cultural transformation."  The first half of this sentence is at least partly correct for it is truly important that Christians think about what it is they believe instead of blindly spouting forth ignorance and making the gospel to look like something with no sense.  It is no excuse to say that the love of God is foolishness to the world so let that not stand in the way either.  However, is it truly the mission of the Church to transform culture and morality and spirituality?  If it is, then it seems that the mission of the Church finds its origin in us.  However, if the mission of the Church is to love one's neighbor and to tell the good news and constantly point back to Christ regardless of morality or culture or spirituality, then, though Christians act as instruments, the message and the goal are neither of themselves nor of the world.  They are active in preaching God's Word which never returns to God empty or unfulfilled and they are spurred onward by the Spirit of God and their new nature in Christ.  Cultures may or may not change, that is of little concern when it comes to the Gospel.  It is also important to ask what he means by spiritual transformation.  Does he mean feeling God?  Does he mean salvation?  Does he mean sanctification?  Again, what happens when these items rest on our shoulders? 

He also seems to feed this idea of anti-intellectualism when he says on page 142, "We've tried too long to educate their minds instead of engaging their lives."  What is the dichotomy between learning and living?  Did he not point out earlier in the chapter that young Christians are extremely lacking in their understanding of the faith?  Perhaps the matter is that people have given up on educating Christians in sound doctrine and have rather focused on the issue of getting them to live Christian lives.  Perhaps the problem with Christianity coming off as foolishness (for good reasons this time) is because so many Christians haven't been encouraged or given the tools to truly examine theological matters such as salvation, sanctification, vocation, law, and gospel.  Instead, people are being sent messages that they must make God happy (top of page 144) and how "this generation" is the one that will finally make the difference and satisfy God.  On page 144-145 he cites Chuck Colson who, in his segment, describes how Christianity has become boring and how it is the responsibility of this generation to restore its excitement.  It is prudent, then, to ask if a marriage, which at times is boring, is therefore a failure or is lacking something, or, perhaps, to ask if raising a child is a failure because it isn't exciting.  Is the student a failure who is not always in throws of passion with his studies?  Christianity can be boring, but bravo to humdrum because nothing rests on the message being exciting or boring.  Instead, the weight is found in the message being true and it is anti-intellectual to not understand this point.  Pages 145-146 describe Mark Batterson, who states that he has created a church for the "unchurched".  Evangelism is important, but what about feeding the flock?  What about the churched who are in need?  Also, what does it mean to be unchurched?  Batterson leaves great holes in his theology and seems to neglect the pastoral duties of feeding the sheep.  These people seem to forget who Christ is and the leave Him out in the cold.  Along with Him, they also leave little room for true, theological teaching and the actual Sheep.  Instead, they are entirely focused on church-growth and being appealing in a subjective sense. 

The last two people Kinnaman quotes, however, seem to redeem him at least a little.  Pages 148 through 152 are filled with valuable and encouraging information.  D. Michael Lindsay points to the historical Church and how it lead the way in the advancement of knowledge and how many Christians are currently at the forefront in their fields.  John Scott uses and properly explicates scripture to show that Christians have a vocation to be educated and to face the world they live in.  Much like Kierkegaard and his knight, Scott demonstrates how the Christian lives trying to proclaim the message of Christ's forgiveness in a world that is trying to shun it and put it out.  These two demonstrate that nothing has changed in the fruits of the Church since its conception nearly 2000 years ago.  In truth, this generation of Christians is doing the same thing the Church has done through ages past.  Certainly there are many "stupid" Christians out there as there have been always, but the true Church has maintained her intellectuals as well as her doctrine.  In Christ all are one, so perhaps there is only one generation of believers who faithfully and confidently and lovingly preach Christ and Him crucified as they have done.

Then there was the matter of politics.  Society sees Christianity as too political.  Again, with regards to the crazies and the pedantic who claim to be Christian or claim to preach Christianity, one must agree with Kinnaman.  He makes multiple good points and, in fact, this may be one of the better chapters in his book as far as being straight forward, sound, and good for teaching.  One need only sum up what he says by stating that it is the vocation of a Christian to love and respect their neighbors in a political sense by being informed and acting Christ-like upon that information.  If there is ever a way for a Christian to seek to change society out of love for their neighbor, this is the only place and it is only within this realm (of the law and with the understanding that the promises of God are not that cultures and societies will be changed) that a hope for a better society can be properly taught and sought.  However (a stipulation that occurs an exhausting number of times with this book) Kinnaman puts a leaven of angst into the mix.  He takes a quote from Brian McLaren that seems to be a little fatalistic (a theme that begins to reveal itself more and more as the book reaches its end) in how he describes a need for the Church to change its politicking.  McLaren believes that Christianity has a deep and serious problem and by stating it like that, he conveys a sense that if the Church doesn't change something, then it will lose its battle and the gates of hell (in this case, society) will prevail against it.  But does true Christianity need to change?  Is it, instead, those who are not truly educated in Christian doctrines that need to change?  Is it, perhaps, them who should come back to the catholic orthodoxy of the Church that has stood for all these years?  It seems that good political philosophy and theology is out there and has been since the beginning of Christianity, so need it truly change?  Mark Batterson, too, voices an opinion that isn't historical.  He does say at the very end of his message on page 175 that the primary goal of the church is to focus on Christ.  However, toward the top of the page he states how in the small groups at his church, the leaders get "visions from God".  What could that possibly mean?  Is he saying that his congregants are like prophets and therefore their every vision should be heeded and followed and that God has given him and his church special promises that are fulfilled by their doing and that these promises are in regards to political-economic matters?  Should these visions be added onto the Bible?  They seem to glorify man rather than God and therefore Batterson contradicts himself for although he says his aim is to focus on Christ it is apparent that he is focused on his own vision.  Then there is Rev. (?) Jannah Scott.  She starts off by saying that the reason young Christians don't know the proper place of politics is because they've been taught only forms of judgment, self-righteousness, and perceptions of holiness.  She then goes on to say that the solution is to teach them "kingdom principles" of love, compassion, justice, and the sovereignty of Christ.  It's fascinating how she contradicted herself.  She said not to be judgmental, but quite harshly judged those whom she deemed self-righteous.  She then condemns their form of holiness and institutes her own but under the guise of "kingdom principals".  Equally ironic, she says that the youth are not taught all of God's statutes.  She, a female "pastor" who is utterly in contradiction of the statute that women are not to be pastors, says that the problem is that they have not been taught all of scripture's statutes.  She also says that God has sovereignty over the political tide of the age and that Christians have a  destiny to fulfill in this matter but then she says that there is a potential for us to fail (or at least it's implied) in that we must teach our children these "kingdom principals" of hers (lest the Church crumble?).  Therefore, is it really destiny or is it yet another sinful human being imposing their unbiblical "vision" of Christianity on Christians?  Is this the true hope that world counts as folly or is this just more earthly "wisdom"?  Is this truly the gospel or is this law being dressed up and mingled as gospel?

The final chapter to focus on one of the six problems he mentioned at the start of the book is chapter eight where he describes how Christians come off as judgmental.  He uses an example or two from his own life to highlight his concerns and they are certainly binding issues to address.  Indeed, it is important for Christians to understand the proper place of judgment in their lives.  It is also a very difficult issue which, all too often, seems gray.  Often Christians voice their opinions or perspectives without having an ear to hear and a heart to empathize with those who might disagree or who may have a different perspective.  It can be a challenge to see people through the eyes of the cross when the laws of God are so cut and dry.  Many seem to lack the responsibility in making a proper judgment when it comes to some of the moral actions of others.  Does that mean a Christian shouldn't make judgments?  Kinnaman voices a perspective with two focal points on this question: (1) he describes how Christians shouldn't judge those outside the church, though he seems to leave his definition of judgment very loose and (2) he prescribes moral ways with which to judge both those within and without of the Church.  He attempts to set up a case not to judge those who are outside the Church with a quote from 1 Corinthians 5:12.  In context, this verse is Paul speaking to Christians who have been associating with other "Christians" who have given themselves over to utter horrid behavior.  Paul tells the Church in Corinth to have nothing to do with that lot.  Paul then says that it is not his place to judge those outside of the Church because it is God who judges them (what is Paul's definition of judgment in this context?).  For those within the Church, Paul entreats the Church to "purge the evil person from among you" (1 Cor 5:13).  He then turns around and makes a great argument about how to properly judge both those inside and outside of the Church.  He points out the story in John 8 where a group of Jews had gathered to stone a woman who had been caught in adultery.  Jesus turns their judgment back on themselves pointing out that they, too, are wretched sinners.  He then turns to the woman and edifies her faith by His very Word that she should no longer sin in this manner.  He freed her from her sinful way of living in adultery (as no equation can do but only the will of God).  What message is this for the Church?  Kinnaman says it's a reminder that Christians should judge for the right reasons and indeed the new nature inclines them to do so out of love for their neighbor.  However, this story also tells the Christian that every person is a sinner and that it is only by the word of God that a sinner is freed from sin, death, and the devil.

Whether or not Kinnaman knows it, the example he makes of Romans 2:1, 4 is a perfect representation of what it means to judge out of love.  Paul, here, is condemning the hypocritical form of judgment where, due to it being false way of interpreting scripture, the person points out that another has a flaw without gratifying the truth that that same sin or myriads of other sins certainly rest in themselves.  This quote is, in fact, Paul judging others (others inside the Church?).  Perhaps Kinnaman detracts from the Christian calling to judge when he denounces those who would say they are called to do just that.  What he doesn't acknowledge is the Christian responsibility to judge sin in themselves and in others and that the judgment is supposed to be one of love.  Paul lovingly chastised the Romans for their false doctrine.  Someone within the Church can lovingly judge their child as having done something wrong and punish them.  Someone within the Church can also judge someone else to be preaching false doctrine and condemn that person as a liar and say that Christianity has nothing to do with them yet pray and hope that they turn back to the love of Christ.  A Christian can also "judge" the world, see that it is evil, warn others (out of love), and do their best to live out a life showing love to others (perhaps even this critique is becoming slightly abstract).  Let it simply be concluded, then, that the Christian is called to judge sin as sin, to leave the punishment and condemnation to God for those outside of the church (unless their earthly vocation is to carry out earthly judgment), to judge those within the Church and to respond accordingly to those who preach false doctrine and bear no fruit, and to show love to their neighbor in both circumstances, ultimately and always being reminded that it is by grace that a person is saved and not by works or judgments of the law.

The "Changing Perceptions" section is a deeply mixed bag.  Rick McKinley painted a beautiful picture of the true state of all humanity and the overarching grace of God.  McKinley's statement is one that assures the Christian and the world that the grace of God is truly present where the true Christian is present.  Yet, in the very next section, Mike Foster seems to forget this.  Foster uses an example of a mega-church pastor who committed a terrible sin and was be chastised and abandoned by the (supposed) Christian community of fellow mega-church pastors and congregants.  Foster then says that he thinks the doctrine of grace is struggling to survive in Christianity as if it were that way throughout the entire Church.  Maybe it is more valuable to say that the doctrine of those mega-churches is making it hard for the gospel to exist.  Just look at Foster's comment that God is a God of second chances.  Clearly these people believe that grace rests on the shoulders of humanity because a second chance implies a second chance to fail.  God is not a God of second chances.  He is a God of for-sure's and do-it-Himself's.  Foster makes it seem like the whole of Christianity is on the brink of being destroyed yet he seems to have forgotten the 2000 years of a Church Militant that survived by, through, and in the grace of God.  Instead, it seems that the problems are wolves creeping in under sheep's clothing.  These preachers preach a "gospel" that places such a huge emphasis on proper action, on being anti-judgment (ironic), and on being supposedly pro-people (these are but some of the many enemy doctrines today) and in doing so they make a new "gospel" that is utterly confusing in both the sense of confusing the doctrine of law and gospel but also confusing in that they keep heaping laws upon laws to burden the shoulders the Christian effectively rejecting Paul's message to the Galatians that salvation is by grace.  As much as many of these mega-churches may say they focus on Christ and as often as people like Rick Warren say His name, they, in fact, do nothing more than constantly point back to humanity and its "ability" to keep the law.  A true Christianity centers on Christ for it is there that the Christian understands truth in all matters.  This is so because Christ is Truth, the Way, and the Life. 

The rest of the book (here being organized under chapter nine) follows suit being both mixed with good and mixed with bad.  Here, Kinnaman judges the whole of the Christian Church (supposedly) and prescribes certain methods by which it may be corrected and reformed to create a new perception that society can see us through.  The first section, on page 206, focuses on responding with the right perspective.  This is a very good idea because it does not take much for one to understand the major shortfalls and biases of a purely one-sided, subjective point of view.  He also specifies that seeing alternate perspectives does not mean Christianity is giving up any of its doctrine, either.  For those two things, he should be greatly commended seeing as many Christians and people in general see those two as being at odds with one another.  Here, Kinnaman rightly teaches the law in showing how Christ acted as an example for Christians.  He shows the proper action but also the shortcoming.

It is upsetting, therefore, when he takes a wrong turn with the next section entitled CONNECT WITH PEOPLE.  It is correct to think that Christians should and do have sincere relationships; however Kinnaman seems to have replaced the work of the Holy Spirit with good friendships.  He misinterprets scripture by inserting something that isn't in the text of Scripture (a certain moral lesson out of Christ's work) and coming to the false conclusion that proper moral action will grow the Church.  Kinnaman believes that Christ's action of having proper relationships with those around him (deep relationships with His disciples and His mother and Mary Magdalene etc.) is what influenced them to have great faith and to follow after Christ.  No doubt relationships are important and God works through whatever means He will but Christ "influenced" those around Himself to follow His teachings not by sincerity, but by every Word flowing from the mouth of God.  God doesn't bring people to Himself by human means of sincerity and kindness and human love, but by His means of grace such as Baptism and Communion.  It is the working of the Holy Spirit.  It is by the preaching of His Word in accordance with sound doctrine.  Kinnaman, no doubt, is a sacramentarian, therefore he would put no trust in the efficacy of the sacraments of Baptism and Communion.  However, he seems to give no credence or credit to the power of God's Word and the Spirit.  Instead, he places the responsibility of conversion and influence entirely on humanity; sinful, putrid, horrid, failing humanity.  There is a place for loving one's neighbor, let that not be misunderstood from this analysis, but let the gospel of grace not be mingled with the law of human love. 

The section on being creative is no breath of fresh air either.  The premise of the very first paragraph makes no sense what so ever.  What does it mean to "connect people with God's heart"?  Kinnaman attempts to come off sounding appealing and theological, but utterly fails.  He (perhaps wrongly) interprets how Christ spoke and uses Him as an example for how Christians should be creative and speak the "people's language" (so what does Kinnaman make of the parables?).  Kinnaman seems to be implying that Christians must make the message of the Gospel appear appealing to the world.  They must make it digestible, interesting, thrilling, and new especially to a generation that thinks it knows everything.   Yet is that what pastors and the priesthood of believers are called to do?  Are they not called to preach the crucified and risen savior, to preach law and gospel, as well as all other things pertaining to true teachings and doctrines?  The world may see the terms of forgiveness, reconciliation, gospel, Christ, etc. as dead and uninteresting terms, but a true Christian knows and seeks out the knowledge of these and other terms and teachings.  It is not the mission of Christianity to teach what is appealing but to teach, preach, and confess what is needed and what is true.  This is what has been traditionally taught going back through generations from modern preachers to Luther to Augustine to Paul to Christ, Himself.  There is a need to communicate this rightly and there is a need to communicate this well.  However, just because the message may be boring or hard to understand from time to time does not make it false or wrong and it does not mean the Church has failed.  Just as marriage can be boring and friendships can be boring, this does not mean relationships and marriages are wrong or failures.

The next section, once again, acts to typify this idea of fatalism.  Kinnaman brow-beats Christians and demands that they start serving others.  He preaches how the world does not see the loving actions of Christians in the world, therefore they must try harder.  However, he turns a blind eye to the billions donated in charitable finances by Christians every year.  He does not mention the many thousands of forms of aid and relief that many denominations have partaken in.  He doesn't state the help of the Roman Catholics to help men and women live healthy and safely in third-world countries nor is there a hint at the Lutheran Malaria outreach programs in Africa.  The Christian volunteers who helped clean up after Katrina are given no recognition nor are those citizens who risk life, limb, time, and money to do what they can for the cause of loving their neighbor. 

The final part of the first section is about Kinnaman's distress over that which is unchristian.  He says that it may be a hard pill to swallow and then goes on to state a few lines that don't seem to flow together.  Instead, he seems to appeal more to clichés and morality than understanding the need for reformation in the Church.  The end of page 217 culminates with the heaviest example of mingling law and gospel.  He quotes 1 Chronicles 7:14 which says (in his translation), "if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land."  This follows him saying that, "Scripture puts the burden squarely on believers."  He then asks, "Are we up to the challenge?"  Yet he still, two-hundred and seventeen pages into the book, has not rightly distinguished what it is believers need to do.  Nor has he distinguished what it is God does.  By quoting this verse he seems to imply that if Christians would humble themselves, pray, seek God's face, morally act correctly and turn from their ways, then and only then would their sins be forgiven and their land (U.S.?) would be restored.  One must then ask; restored how and what about forgiveness coming solely by the grace of God?  The truth is that this verse is of the law; God made a demand to Israel that He knew they would not be able to keep hence the division of the kingdom, the fall of Israel in the north to the Assyrians and the fall of Judea in the south to the Babylonians.  Yet Kinnaman seems to be trying to sell it as if it's gospel.  As if by this means will God gather His Flock.  He also seems to be adding another promise onto the gospel by implying that the U.S. and Christianity will prosper; all of this, of course, by the pure workings of human hands.  By having the right vision of the future and by having the right purpose, namely to follow the law and focusing on our actions, Kinnaman seems to think that all that is wrong with his and world's conception of Christianity will be righted.  As he says in the middle of page 219, "to rebuild our lives and restore our nation, we have to recover love and concern for others."  He comes to this conclusion by misinterpreting Isaiah 58:1-4, 6-12.  Yet this verse is actually exemplifying how God would be the savior of sinners and how God would restore them into a right relationship with Himself in a kingdom that has no end and a kingdom not of this world as Christ says in John 18:36.  To put it simply, Kinnaman has fallen into false doctrine and sits at enmity with the Church catholic.  Here he very readily goes back to Rome and yokes himself and the rest of Christianity with the burden of a law of condemnation and with promises not given.  He does not realize that it is Christ who has truly restored the Holy Nation and who has given Christians New, Eternal Life in His Son, Jesus Christ by the will of the Father and working of the Holy Spirit. 

The last section on new perceptions (starting on page 228) is another discouragement.  It starts off with John Stott preaching a somewhat social gospel (that the promises of God are for social change).  More context is needed to understand what he is teaching and where it is to be applied.  Dave Gibbons shows the fatalism of the book when he lists off what Christianity should be doing (loving neighbors etc.) yet does not appear to have a clue that there are people out there doing those very things.  He starts off by saying, "I think," which clearly shows that he hasn't thought a whole lot about this matter and that he considers himself and his moral code the highest good (perhaps reading too much into it?).  Gary Hougen (page 231-232) doesn't seem to think that Christians are actually alive in Christ.  Dan Kimball doesn't seem to think that Christians have non-Christian friends.  Although he is right that there is false doctrine out there by which people think it is wrong to associate with unbelievers, undoubtedly there are millions of Christians who understand proper doctrine and act with the world accordingly.  The "what-if's" of Leroy Barber (234-235) seem to spit in the face of two thousand years of Church history.  He doesn't seem to grasp the fact that the Church, which existed before him and his five-step principals, can and will exist for another two thousand plus years without them.  He also seems to mingle the promises of God with earthly things in how he wants to see earthly kingdoms become kingdoms of God.  He seems to lack the confidence that God knows that He's doing.  Jim Wallis (page 235-236) appears to think that the mission of the Church is to be a social movement rather than to proclaim Christ and Him crucified and raised from out of the grave.  Jim White (237) is a mix.  One must question the value and place of speculating what will happen to the church in the next thirty years.  However, he seems to understand that grace makes loving possible and that human loving is not the grace of God nor does it merit the grace of God.  He rightly distinguishes Law and Gospel.  Jeff Johnson (238) clearly doesn't understand the vocation of the Christian or the promise of God.  He seems to think that Christians should and will have dominion over the world and make it into a better place (dominionism and the social gospel heresies?).  Kevin Kelly (239-240) seems to be for the self-help preachers but what sort?  There are some, like Joyce Meyer and other word-faith heretics as well as health, wealth, and prosperity gospel heretics who preach a self-help Christianity where  the Christian is promised victory in many if not all earthly struggles including poverty, "battles of the mind", success, self-doubt, etc.  None of which is found promised by God in an earthly sense.  They also do this by placing the burden of the accomplishment of these promises on the Christian.  Fincher (240 to 241) seems to think he knows exactly what will happen to Christians.  He may be presuming too much.  He sees them as culture shapers and world changers.  Ultimately, he has a vision of Christians as having "bigger souls".  Is the message of Christ that He changes lives though?  And what does it mean to have bigger souls?  He attempts to paint a picture of more proper moral conduct (even if he doesn't label it moral conduct) and creates yet more laws to follow and press toward.  He seems to think that those in Christ are lacking in good things, quite contrary to God's word (Psalm 34) as Christ has certainly attained and given to them all good things.  Mike Foster (242 through 243) yet again seems to demonstrate his fatalistic view of Christianity by stating that Christianity (at least the one he believes is Christianity) has "gone off course".  Then there is Rick Warren (244-245).  He believes that the Church must be doing what Christ did.  Yet, as defined by Rick Warren, this is merely a social task.  It has nothing to do with proclaiming the forgiveness of sins by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.  Apparently, this way of preaching is an "amputation" of the body of Christ.  Apparently this isn't enough.  Warren seems to think that the "purpose" of the Church is to save the world from everything.  Though he mentions Christ early on, he mentions nothing about Christ being the purpose of Christians.  He says nothing about salvation being the goal for which they run the race.  He says nothing about how Christ saved the world.  His dream is one where the people are always looking back on themselves.  Naval gazing about the wondrous things they have done and how they save the world.  Finally, there is Brian McLaren (245-246).  Nowhere in his section does he mention Christ.  Nowhere does he talk about salvation and the grace of God in the gospel or of the severity of the law.

There were some good writers.  Andy Crouch (229-231) truly understands the state of the Church.  How, through centuries, She has survived and how She is doing, and has been doing and will continue to do, all the wonderful things Christ has called Her to do even if society doesn't recognize it.  He says that if there is anything for Christianity to do, it is to become better known for what it already is.  He knows that neither Christianity nor Christ needs our spin control or PR.  He says that Christians should reveal that they are worse than perceptions.  By the proof of the law, they are sick worms.  Yet he also says that they should preach by the sweetness of the gospel and how there is Another who lives in Christians.  "Perceived or misperceived, celebrated or crucified, the One who lives in us has a way of walking through walls."  He rightly distinguished law and gospel.  The others such as Colson (236) and White (237) seem to focus on the callings of the Christian to show their own love for the world and grace for it.  They don't really preach Christ, but like much of the book offer good philosophy and advice for proper action. 

So what does one make of this book?  It covers so many social matters yet it all too often only presents undefined, unbiblical, and inadequate social solutions.  It finds its focus on humanity without giving proper insight into God's actions.  Little does it show the answer to be Christ and the doctrine that follows Him.  In fact, it never once seems to verify that proper catechesis and doctrine show the true cure to these problems; the cure being Christ.  Little is it honest about the history of the Church and the actual promises given to it.  He seems to create an image of a Church that is utterly dying and one where the promises of God are of earthly purpose and earthly power and earthly influence (the list goes on).  Truthfully, however, orthodoxy has been present since the start.  God knows how to lead His Church.  God has shown His Cure, even if it's folly to the world.  His Church has always proclaimed this Cure and His Church is perfectly healthy.  His Church knows His voice when He calls and it knows that His promises are not of this earth.  The view of Christianity in the societal eye of America is strenuous partially due to false doctrine creeping in, partially due to saints being sinners, and partially due to society having it in for Christ.  It will be this way till the last day, yet God will guide His Church Militant until it reaches its destination and becomes the Church Triumphant. 

I came home after working at Wal-Mart several days ago completely dissatisfied with my life.  Why, exactly, that was could perhaps be discerned from the first half of that last sentence.  But more than that, it stemmed from all the things I've done wrong, the people I've wronged, the sins I've committed, the stupid things (and amount of things) I've said, the list goes on for who could list all their iniquities?  I found it fitting to sit down and hammer out my thoughts for my sake and those who like hearing a rant.  It was extremely relevant, considering the hours and hours and hours and hours we spent last semester attempting to understand vocation and calling.  Note: I never offer any "cure" for this dissatisfaction (unless you count death?).  Rather, I advocate the Christian doing as much as possible what comes by the new nature given to them by Christ, fully aware that self-satisfaction might never be had in this life, and if it is, then often only for fleeting moments.  Let that not be disheartening, for our hope, our faith, and our comfort come from elsewhere.  Without further hot air, I present: Blogging Angry.

 "Last semester we studied and discussed and debated and concluded and questioned the meaning of calling and vocation.  I think our ideas were solid and hardly anything more than what Luther, from what we had learned, would have said with our called vocation be to love and serve our neighbors in whatever ways the Good Lord has bestowed us with.  I've been blessed with the vocation of working... at Wal-Mart.  The first part of that sentence throws me into a theological glory high where I can explicate (As my fellow students know) for hours on end.  I talked (talk) quite a bit and can't help but ask the question as to whether or not, if in all of those words, I actually said something seeing as how so much seemed to be propelled by a gut instinct to delve more and more into wanting to say the right thing and to flesh out an idea in my mind.  Every so often I came to a conclusion or heard something great from someone else, but now, in the midst of practicing what I preached and heard preached, I can't help but find it terribly difficult nigh on impossible.  The simple fact that I'm experiencing is that the life of a Christian is messy.  Very messy.  Simultaneously saint and sinner my donkey.  By the proclamation and definition of those health-wealth titans I'm nothing but a slobbering miserable sinner.

How am I, Jordan Robert Voges (the first) a sinner you might ask?  You question how such a man as myself could not be perfect (I want to be dramatic and put the dark bit first).  I hate working at Wal-Mart (I even hate typing the word walmart because it appears that Microsoft spell check has made a deal with the devil to disqualify any typed form of the title from being acceptable other than "Wal-Mart" [try it yourself]).  There is little to no satisfaction with the job other than the money which is a glorious $7.90 an hour.  What's more, you know that legendary Wal-Mart discount of 10%?  That only kicks in after 90 days.  Thanks be to God that I will be back at my studies in St. Paul come day 91(if I sound ungrateful then I beg you to listen till the end).  I stand for hours on end making a nice smile, attempting to be sincere, scanning items, taking dirty money from dirty fingers belonging to dirty people, listening to the imposing sound of the "beeeeeeeeEEEEEP!!!" verifying an item has been scanned, suffering from pain in the arch of my back, tired legs, hurting feet, temper-tantrummed youth and adults who's EBT cards and WIC transactions aren't going through as smoothly as they'd wish, with the only other company to speak of being equally discounted, discomforted, robotic people waiting to punch out.  I know that being a cashier is different than being the department manager of sporting goods but I don't see how my dad has made it in Wal-Mart for over 20 years (throw in an extra prayer for him tonight).  How can I possibly love my neighbor with these thoughts and this attitude and this nature haunting my every mood and incentive and decision and action?  What's more, I've come to the conclusion that this is what life will be like for me and every other person for the rest of our lives (i.e. living in at least a certain level of vanity).  No matter how much we seek the dollar and the personal time off, or to get to that ideal level of satisfaction with our relationships (with others and God), that job is always waiting come Monday morning.  One of those mornings will be the last one, too, so after all those years of toil, the grave. 

The saint in me recognizes how much of a sinner I am and how my incentive in that last paragraph was clearly more myself than my neighbor.  All of that dirty anger to say that it's hard to love people.  Not physically or mentally hard like one has to bench-press a situation in their mind until they've reached the bar-level titled "love of one's neighbor", but that I am utterly inclined to not love others.  It doesn't matter how much I fight it or how much I give in to the anger, it's a horrible truth that resides in me every "waking" hour and "resting" minute. 

Then the saint remembers how the sinner, though alive for a vain little while, is defeated.  I am blessed to discuss calling and vocation with such splendid people and to live out theory and theology and doctrine and philosophy at Wal-Mart... and at home with my mom or with my little sister, or my two older brothers and my dad and my grandparents et. al.  Our conclusions edify a knowledge that I have been granted and an insight given to me by my studies last year. 

Is it cocky of me to say that I know the plan God has for my life down to a "T"?  Down to one word even?  There is no "T" in the word by the way.  This will insult Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and Joyce Meyer because I didn't have to purchase any of their "books" to discover it.  The purpose for my life, the path that God is leading me on, passing in the valley of every shadow of doubt and death and sin, firmly founded on the Rock of Calvary is... salvation; one little word, having no need for capital letters to amplify its meaning or an exclamation mark (since the whole of creation exclaims it).

With that knowledge in mind, I am told that I am a saint who by nature loves his neighbor and forgives others as he is forgiven, as that is the natural fruit of the tree of forgiveness.  For that, and for everything else, I thank God.  I know the value of my work when I see a person smile because I've done a quality job and made them know that they have been given good service.  I know the value of the money I make because with it I fund my education along with all the other necessities of life (which may include getting a certain sister of mine ice cream).  I know that my parents sacrificed to raise me as they have, living in a life lacking in no physical need.  Ultimately, I give thanks as an effect of and toward the very fact that I am forgiven by the grace of God, by the will of the Father, the act of the Son, and the regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

Like the most elegant of all trees is this theology which the faith of a Christian is endowed to and which the Christian is endowed with, growing forth from the Eternal Rock, with Christ as its trunk and His grace the sap which brings the growth.  Around this trunk grow forth thousands of truths based on the Truth.  The Church, the Bridegroom of Christ, is like the most majestic and stately of Cathedrals.  Inside, it is painted by the hands of a thousand saints and their stories, all of which point to Christ.  Every member of the body present singing triumphant over the world, over death, over the devil, in and by the grace of God.

And yet it is this knowledge that makes life so unbearable at times.  I find my eyes and mind wandering to dark places where they should not go.  I find my tongue reminding me daily that my heart is unclean.  I watch my hands work destruction and act out a will which would lead them straight to hell.  I fight in my mind, torn and bludgeoned by the veil of this world.  My heart, it beats perversion and my lunges, which inhale the pollution of this age, exhale toxin which could be considered no better.  I am a hypocrite and so much more.  I am a sinner and a saint, torn between two natures, two worlds, two lords...."

One could see me carrying on like that, back and forth between saint and sinner, for quite a while.  There is a benefit to understanding the idea though the knowledge that this life is dissatisfying is slightly depressing.  I would suppose that's why Paul calls life a race.  The reward waits at the end when Christ says, "Well done, good and faithful servant."  So we run the race, because Christ has made us to run by His sacrifice.  We live because Christ has brought us alive. It can be a comfort knowing that the veil is soon to drop and that Christ is coming and quickly, even when all confidence and hope is lost for this life, Christ comes and is already with us, having never left us, presenting Himself to us Sunday after Sunday in the wine and the bread, giving out His Spirit in the water, and building His Church by His word.

Long winded.  Next time I post, be it of my own volition or of my own volition spurred on by a Schuler, I will do my best to make it more focused and actually having a conclusion... unless one isn't needed.

Cordially in Christ, bro

Jordan Voges

P.S. If there are errors of any sort, theologically, grammatically, or even historically, let me know asap.  This is an honors blog, after all, and I can only afford to look so stupid on it.

Image taken from: http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/wp-content/uploads/colbert_walmart_word-180x130.jpg

And if you want to be depressed by the world AND Wal-Mart, as I am, check out these apples: http://coyoteprime-runningcauseicantfly.blogspot.com/2011/11/satire-in-positive-economic-sign.html

The final convocation of the 2011-2012 school year was a very interesting one.  It involved horses and therapy.  Much like the dogs that one could find in the tunnel, especially during the drudgery of winter, these horses were used to help simplify what could, perhaps, be quite complicated.  The convocation involved two groups, one being teachers and the other, students, and each group was given a horse and a saddle-bag to place on the horse.  They were told to pack the saddle with whatever they though was necessary as there were a myriad of items set out before each team.  Every item was labeled with some life factor to illustrate that one can only carry so much.  It was interesting to note that when each team had picked its load and set off, the students having the larger number of items, they eventually figured out that the saddle fell off of the horse so they carried the sack themselves.  When it was all said and done, each person came up with an idea of what event in the activity corresponded with something in life and what potential lessons could be learned.

It's an original idea, using horses (or any animal for that matter) to appease the angst that seems to come with finals and tests and strain on the psyche.  There's something about the simplicity and warmth of an animal that passes from the animal to the student.  Or, even, from the student to the animal, but in that case, they seem to sympathize with one another.  Perhaps human relationships cannot always ease an unsettled mind.  Humanity has written for generations about the peace and tranquility of escaping into solitude.  One could equally argue that an overwhelming more has been written about human relationships.  Perhaps there is simply a time and a place for everything.

I find it almost poetic, how the mind changes states during finals or during any high stress moments.  People jump from extreme to extreme with little to no lax in passion in their mood.  If they are sad, they are desperately sad.  If they are happy, they are flamboyant.  If they are anywhere in the midst of any other emotion or mood, they feel it down to the core.  It's equally poetic how, after only a week later, people go back to a different mood, spreading that passion out over the many different fronts of their lives.  When they look back at the trial, perhaps they remember what they learned, perhaps they gloat, perhaps they mourn, or perhaps they realize that although it was certainly good, there is always a vanity to it.  Vanity doesn't make it bad, though.  In fact, the reality check of the finiteness of this life is a good call to action to live life even more while keeping one's eyes on the cross.  Vanity is also good for making people laugh so I hope you enjoy the photo. 

Peace out

JV

Nearly a week ago I went to a baseball game.  It was a nice warm day in contrast to the week before which had been chilly to say the least.  The nice weather and the gentle walk seemed to put me in a good mood contrary to my generally negative attitude towards sports.  If I could say why (my reasons are irrational so bear with me) I would say that it's because of my negative view towards the athletes themselves.  Throughout high school, many of the athletes I came to know were not enjoyable to be around.  Some of them had major problems, some of them were actually quite nice (those, I often enjoyed hanging out with).  Most, however, seemed egotistical and, to say the least, were jerks.  This broad stereotype that I had created for athletes and jocks had spilled over into college.  Here, it's not difficult to see the lack of respect that many athletes give to their own bodies (take all the drinking for example), for others (take the insults slung towards people when said athletes are drunk), and for the campus (take all the times I've seen the elevator trashed or the commons in Wolly trashed by them when they were drunk).  So, as I approached the game, I expected only to criticize the players.  Thankfully, that's not what happened.

I have been realizing, more and more, that I am very judgmental not only towards others but to myself.  I know that I must change if I am to be a pastor because a pastor should do his best to see everyone through the eyes of Christ.  Right now, though, when I see that someone peed in the corner of the elevator I can't help but get pissed (pun intended).  It upsets me and frustrates me to see how horribly people act.  I walk through the hallways and hear men talking about their sexual exploits last weekend; I see a group of team members drunk and acting like asses to the world.  I see "hipsters" high as a kite and I can't help but feel a little holier than thou since I've never done anything so horrible and because I smarter than them and better than them...  And that's where it hits me.  It's not me on a mountain top screaming at others to climb to safety, nor is it me on a shoreline trying to help them up.  It's me, drowning in a river with the lot of them with the only difference being my confirmed salvation when I do drown.  I'm a sick enough man and I have skeletons in my closet.  I have hurt people close and far from me.  I have acted irrationally and acted foolishly.  I have let myself be led astray and have done so to others.  I am a sinner in the company of sinners.

Dr. Trapp has said that we Christians are cross eyed.  We see others through the lens of our crucified and risen savior.  Each person is forgiven and loved by God and so it is the nature of a redeemed Christian to treat them as such.  I have not done so to anywhere near perfection.  But that's where the blind spots come in.  Not only do Christians turn a blind eye to injustice done to them by others (which they do to a fault) but they turn a blind eye to their own sin.  Not that they live in sin and are given license to sin, but that they are truly and utterly forgiven just as everyone is.  Christians live life looking out of the tomb because they know, drowning in that river though they be, that life extends beyond death and someday, when Christ returns, they will be lifted out of the murky silt of that river of filth and placed on the green land of eternity.  This is my comfort while I drown.  By nature, I try my best (as any Christian does) to love others and myself as Christ has loved us.  I try to forget what's been done wrong.  I try to keep a focus on eternity.  And when I fail utterly and completely, I know that I am saved not by doing these things for I do these things because I am saved; rather, I know that I am saved by the perfect life, death, and resurrection of Christ.  That is the message this drowning world needs.

I think about my father, now.  He played college baseball and was the pitcher for the SMSU mustangs.  He has faults and I know he had his times of partying back in the day.  But if I can love him and if I can know that he has his hope in salvation and that because of him I am where I am right now, then that is just one more reason for me to love athletes and everyone else for that matter.  I know this had little to do with sports, but it did have to do with life so I hope I get a good enough grade by posting it.  I also hope for change.  Change in myself to be kinder and more loving and understanding, and change in them, that God may reveal Himself to them.  Whatever happens, all glory, laud, and honor be to God who holds the world in His hands and carried its sins on His shoulders.  Amen.

Faith and learning, when mixed together, forms the basis of Christian education (duh?).  But more than that, it forms the basis for Christian life as a whole.  It is the burden of every Christian to strike some sort of balance in understanding between how this life works and how the eternal life works and how, if at all, those two things merge.  One is presented with a world where people die, where wars rage, where drama unfolds, where pain multiplies, where tears can be the only company of a small child, where age consumes the flesh and mind, and where a whole host of debilitating factors show humanity just how horrible life is on this rock.  But, even in the midst of all of this pain, God, in His good graces, has deemed fit to bestow upon mankind a mind for grasping things.  The lecture which I attended last week was one where these two worlds collided.  Dr. Tom Trapp, a professor of theology and Dr. Dale Trapp, a professor of the sciences, both brothers of course, explained some of the basic foundations of their academic lives.  Dr. Tom spoke about how the Christian is restored to a proper relationship with God and that although the life that a Christian leads on this earth isn't perfect, it is, no less, a life lived looking out of the tomb with eyes on and through the cross at a world where sins are truly forgiven.  For Dr. Dale, this new view on life opened up the majesty of amazement that one finds when studying the natural world attributed to God as His wonderful creation.  Dale explained how his life studying this world was viewed through the lens of the Christian Gospel. 

So what words of wisdom can be gained by these two good men?  One obvious fact is that although the natural presents the Christian with the problem of being fallen, there is still concord in saying that it is, no less, God's creation, however perverted it may be by sin and death.  This inspires confidence for the Christian.  When they look up to the stars or to the atoms which conduct themselves in bands of organization, or when one studies mathematics, at the swirl of the fractal or the trees of numbers that branch off so stunningly, or when one is in wonder at how the foundation of the earth and the deep above remain separate one can only but stand in awe at God.  And then to imagine that He, the maker of all of these things, died and rose from death for the sins of all... such a realization creates shock beyond words and is worthy of eternal thanks.

How do we then give thanks on this earth?  Many find their passion in exploring the infinitude of details and graphics that paint themselves into so many areas of study from theology to philosophy to geology to astronomy to biology to math to rhetoric to family and the study of community and sociology.  Many hope to serve others in doing these things because the life of a Christian is one of service to God and to others (and perhaps to one's self).  This, I find, is one of the most important realizations that is exemplified in the lives of the doctors Trapp; that the nature of life is service and love.  These two professors have served student, congregation, family, and coworker for many years demonstrating how to live out vocation and aiding students in how to learn and how to have faith.  Thanks be to God for granting the students of Concordia University such favor in professors.  Without them, without them all, we would not be the Christians we are today.

If you know anything about Dietrich Bonhoeffer it's probably that he was a Lutheran pastor who was killed in World War 2.  Understanding this, anyone could come to the conclusion that he was a man of action, which is completely accurate.  This idea is reflected in his theology where he puts almost an extreme emphasis on what he would call obedience to the call of Christ.  This call was to follow and to do as told and in doing so faith would beget obedience and obedience beget faith.  His view is much like that of C.S. Lewis who once wrote that faith and works were like two blades on a pair of scissors; when one moved, so did the other and each took a role in the goal of cutting, which could be considered the salvation and sanctification of a Christian.

Is this view wholly accurate?  Yes and no.  One must imagine what sort of world they were coming from.  Bonhoeffer, living in Nazi Germany, had to bear with the Nazis and the government takeover of the church.  With that happening, it's clear that a person could find it all too easy to put on a face and give up doctrine for the purpose of self-preservation.  Lewis had faced many issues in his life, from the loss of his mother to the war as well.  He had experienced the London Blitz and spoken on the radio to encourage the population of the whole of England.  Neither of these men had it in them to back down from doing what they saw as needed to be done, so as far as teaching that action is a part of the Christian's life, yes, they were spot on.  But, the place of action and obedience must fall under the nature of faith.  Not that faith and works are separate, but that, although faith alone saves and perfects, faith is never alone as both St. Paul and St. James remind us.

As I am learning to understand it, faith is the nature of the Christian.  If one has faith then that means one is alive in Christ.  If one is alive, then they will also have works of faithfulness and obedience because these things are part of what it means to live.  Therefore, we, who are alive in Christ, by faith through grace, by nature produce the fruits of faith, namely:  love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Galatians 5:22-23), purity, being peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits (James 3:17).  Against these things there is no law, but by freedom in Christ they are done.

"Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced."

- Kierkegaard

(potentially taken out of context but never the less something to ponder)

                Although life may not be a problem in need of solving, Kierkegaard takes no time to point out the anxieties found in theology and how it applies to life.  This problem is the nature of faith in the life of a Christian and how that nature is brought to fruition.  In his work, Exordium, he writes about the absurd faith of Abraham.  Abraham was called by God out of his homeland and away from his family with the sole promise that God would make of him a great nation and that by his seed would all the nations be blessed.  Abraham took his wife, Sarah, and his nephew, Lot, and they left behind everything they had to follow after the faith that God had set before Abraham.  Years would go by and Abraham would face many challenges to his life and to his faith.  He bore the marks of his mistakes and would not be mistaken for a perfect man in the ways that he had gone against God, but the promise remained and Abraham was given faith in it.  He continued to live in this promise deep into his old age until, finally, God gave him what he had hoped for: a son.  All of those years Abraham had not hoped for something heavenly or beyond earth.  His hope was not in being an example to future generations nor was it in being a pillar of obedience.  Even more shocking to the Christian, his hope in God's promise was not one which extended past death into eternity.  His hope was in that one son.  Kierkegaard shocks the emotion, then, when he moves to describing the next part in the story; God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.  Kierkegaard is adamant, though, that the reader understands that this is no mere sacrifice of first fruits, but a murder of the most precious thing in Abraham's life because of a command by God.  This is where the absurdity of faith is found, or so Kierkegaard propagates.  Faith, which can be so anxious in its complexity, is experienced and lived out by the Christian.  For it was by the absurd faithfulness of God to His promise, and His Son, Christ, to the will of His Father, that humanity has been saved and that the Christian lives.  God picks up the dead body, breathes life into it, and sets that new creation, that living being, back down on earth.  It is the point of contact between the infinite and the finite.  What makes it so absurd is that it is true.

Kierkegaard is addressing this message to his people, the Danes.  Most people in his country had been raised to think that they were Christian but this supposed Christianity was no Christianity at all.  He points out how faith creates such an anxiety and that although it is absurd and frustrating to comprehend, as faith is what he considers one-of if not the hardest thing-to understand, it still exists.  What's more astounding to him are people of faith who live in the limbo between eternity and time.  He considers these people to be knights and exemplars of the faith to a world that cannot come close for the Christian life is the only true life.

Not that I want to be self-centered and so boast that being a Christian is awesome, but when one considers what, exactly, life in Christ is and that it has its resonance from eternity into this world, one can't help but rejoice and bow at the impending majesty of the grace of God to bless us with such a state at such a great cost to Him.  His sacrifice was more absurd that Abraham's, but us, poor, horrible, dead sinners benefitted from this in every way.  The old hymn rings true when it says that, "twas all for sinners gain."  So here we are.  Stuck in limbo between eternity and this life, blessed to be no longer under the law and granted complete pardon along with true life; true life while living here in a dying, sinful flesh.  This is where the Exordium leaves off and where the idea of calling starts.  This is the anxiety we're given and the peace that we are granted. 

Music has a strange effect on people.  Whether one enjoys country or hard rock or classical, there is a mysterious stirring of emotions that appears to follow.  This sensation is even more prevalent when the music is live with the addition that there is a sense of community presented (so long as the performer or performers are skilled at what they do).  The band at Concordia had its spring concert a few days ago.  The atmosphere in the auditorium where they played was one of this sort of musical emotion.  Whether one looks from the perspective of the artist on stage putting forth the show or one is in the audience, there was a connection, however basic, that made the concert an enjoyable one.

Though the group may criticize themselves for mistakes made, the audience was captivated none the less.  It seems that the emotion of the music can draw people into an excitement or a lull together.  Something which the arts are incredibly skilled at doing though none is as universal as music.  Music acts like a catalyst with the mind so that it works in its creative conscious and subconscious ways to give the person the experience that they are realizing and presenting to others by body language.  When there is a common beat, it is as if the hearts and the toes of the community tap to the same pace.  If there is a sudden shift into a conflicting set of notes, the gut feeling of the listener is one of contention.  If the notes harmonize in such a way that sounds pleasant to the ear then the listener could be made to feel happy or relaxed or even sad with all the ranges in between.  In essence, music mimics and manipulates the human experience.

The arts are just that though: a reflection of the human condition and human nature.  Perhaps music appeals to us so much because the presentation of music in its fluidity and its beats and its tones mimic how our emotions naturally present themselves.  There are certainly thousands of other reasons that determine why we like certain music but the basic concept of music being the embodiment of experience in observable and repeatable form is universal (though, perhaps, some cultures view music and a song or a beat as one which should be spontaneous and not repeated, even so, it is the idea that is repeated).  When music stops being a direct reflection of that condition and that nature, when it becomes just a cheap form of entertainment, that's when music loses its impact and when culture deteriorates.  If there is actual emotion, sentiment, value given to a note or a chord or a lyric or a stroke or a breath, that's when I find I can enjoy music the most whether it's being produced by myself or by another. 

Because the author is under the illusion that he cannot talk in the first person until later on in this post, he must use a creative way to write.  Bear with him.

Concordia University held its Fourth International Conference on Hmong Studies which is a huge cultural event on the campus.  The author wanted to describe his own personal experience but, since he could not, he decided to propose a hypothetical person.  Let this person be called Jordan.  Jordan grew up in a small, rural, mid-Minnesotan town.  His city of Pequot Lakes was populated by just over 2,000 people most of whom (as in over 90%) were white and of European descent.  Within the past few months, Jordan has been exposed to the city of St. Paul, a city of over 2 million people of diverse religions, colors, and cultures.  He adapted to the change rather quickly, however he clung to a group of friends who mainly had the same physical and cultural characteristics of him.  The Hmong conference, however, reminded him about one of the major reasons why he was excited to leave his home town; to experience the cultures of the world.  And what an exciting culture the Hmong have.  Though Jordan did not gain much for book knowledge because it was one day of presentations, he did gain a great deal of insight into the lives of a great many people.  It's clear to him that the world is much bigger than just his one perspective and culture and he hopes to learn more.

How does one take the experience of Jordan?  It's certainly a common occurrence shared by people who come from places like Jordan.  The lack of outside cultures creates a sort of stint to these sorts of Americans when it comes to learning about the rest of the world and understanding other perspectives.  For Jordan, he found the change to be a welcome one.  But what does one assume about his hypothetical grandfather?  Is it true that you can't teach an old dog new tricks?  Many elderly people in his hypothetical neck of the woods suffer from a lack of understanding for outside cultures.  This is, perhaps, due to rural location and nature of such towns.  Or it could be partially due to the time that the elderly had grown up in.  It's probably more of an emergent sort of system by which this occurs. 

I found it exciting and upsetting at how the conference struck me.  I was so happy to finally be getting an experience of a culture so much different than mine.  I wanted to learn more and I wanted to get to know these people.  What I found upsetting was that there was no such opportunity in my home town and for the first few months of my attendance at Concordia, I rarely stepped out of my comfort zone to talk to people of such cultures.  My Honor's Project has somewhat taken me out of my shell but I dearly hope to make strides in understanding other cultures.