theo|digital

I’ve had to answer this question an I’ve-lost-count number of times – from old friends, GCM partners, new friends, professors – those know much about me and those who are meeting me for the first time. I’ve found it tough to answer, because there are so MANY answers. So I think I’ll start slipping them in here, one at a time. Could be ten or more.

Why am I in [seminary/theology grad school/divinity school]?

1. Not to “become a pastor.”
Maybe it’s weird to start with a negative, but this an important first thought. For my GCM friends, we know that we don’t tend to think of pastors as professionals like doctors or lawyers, each with their professional degrees. And we don’t believe a degree can make a pastor.

I still agree with this. I still think that in Paul’s 15 descriptions (in 1 Tim 3) on what an elder should be like, only one involves learning of the book-type: “able to teach.” Others (self-controlled, hospitable, more…) are descriptions of character, and this is grown through spiritual formation: being quick to listen, gaining experience in failure, and cultivating humility.

This is part of the reason why it feels weird to use the word “seminary” as opposed to “study theology” or “grad school” – the first reminds me of that professional model that in some contexts worries me.

ps – Most of my fellows students do see this as pastor training – and I recognize this is the majority view of the current American church – and it’d be foolish for me to say that God hasn’t blessed that. I take my perspective humbly and cautiously. Still can’t shake the feeling that people need more experience than this to be a pastor, but kudos to North Park for heavy emphasis on spiritual formation and internship experiences.

…aren’t as much enemies as it could seem at first glance. Gave a talk last night at I-Life called “Why I Want Sex.” Will post the audio when it becomes available, but wanted to note four books (among others) that I referenced when preparing for my talk.

This is the recorded audio from my last talk at I-Life’s Saturday Night Grace entitled: Why iWorship iPhone (mp3/9.1megs). It’s part of the series Ty and I have been working on called Why I Wear Clothes – how Adam and Eve happens in our daily lives. Feel free to check out the other related talks at www.illinilife.org/study

ps – If you weren’t there live, you could probably better start about at 0:06 minutes in (my mic wasn’t on before that and then there was a poor five minute recovery, and then I demonstrate the Nintendo Wii all onscreen… just not quality audio really).

At the back of Ty’s grandfather’s Decatur church is a large framed document with flourished script. It hangs on the wall as the charter or constitution that originally formed the small Baptist church. It declares the Bible-centered purpose of the new congregation, and lays down some basic beliefs. Among those is a condemnation of alcohol, and the promise that members will not drink it. But it goes further, pledging that members will not attend dinner parties where wine may be served, or purchase groceries from stores that carry alcohol. For years, this regulation sent members across town to the last family-owned store that abstained. These days, there’s no longer a choice.

Why do we live an a culture in the American 20th and 21st century where groups of Christians treat wine with suspicion or hostility, declaring it unfit for association with the Kingdom?

I sat down and had a conversation with Dr. Adrian Lamkin on this very subject. Professor Lamkin is a scholar of Church History, with a special expertise on the late American church. Personally raised as a conservative Kentucky Baptist, Dr. Lamkin understands this phenomenon. I asked him if he could trace some historical roots.

(this isn’t verbatim, it’s my shortened recollection of our hour-long conversation. Any errors are quite definitely mine.)

Me: Do you see another time in church history where the church saw drinking alcohol as wrong or sinful?
Dr. Lamkin: Well, no. No, not really. It seems that most of the church fathers would have not have seen this as a topic to write about… they assumed that church members would consume alcohol going about their regular lives. From Augustine to Luther to CS Lewis… well, much theology was done in the pub, wasn’t it?

Me: I’ve recently read more about the history of the Prohibition movement in the early 1900′s, and the passage of the 18th Amendment in 1920 banning the sale of alcohol in the United States [subsequently repealed in 1929]. I noticed at the time that church groups were some of prohibition’s most prominent supporters.

Dr. Lamkin: Yes, church groups and women’s suffrage groups. The most prominent three denominations in the late 1800′s and early 20th century were Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian. They played a primary role. Baptists and Episcopals wouldn’t have as much influence until later on.

Me: I read the text of several 1920 sermons celebrating the new prohibition with glorious language – promising the beginning of a new era of the Kingdom of God – an end to poverty and sin in our nation. What were the factors that lead the American churches to that viewpoint?

Dr. Lamkin: Okay. I can think of three things. And they aren’t as obvious as you’d think.

Slavery. In the wake of the civil war, there was a path of thought in the church that felt guilty about their verbal absence in condemning slavery. New pastors and leaders felt a burden to speak morality into the culture (as opposed to isolation). They looked for a place of influence. It had a unifying effect on the protestant denominations – a common reason to speak with one voice on a new issue.

Whiskey. We really did have a drinking problem as a nation. The late 1800′s brought stories of the abandoned families of drunken farmers. Europe was referring to us as the “whiskey nation.” Kentucky corn growers could make more money shipping their corn in a fermenting tub down the Mississippi River then trying to lug it over the mountains to the East Coast market. This “whiskey mash” was a major export.

Me: Really? But certainly not a drinking problem more than today.
Dr. Lamkin: Oh yes, really. It was quite bad. The “temperance” movement, advocating a more controlled use of alcohol, was earlier than the prohibition movement. It was a reasonable response to a real problem.

Me: Okay, what else?

Dr. Lamkin: Immigration. It was changing around the turn of the century, especially from Europe. Less Western Europeans from France, Italy, etc, and more Eastern Europe, like from Poland. What’s the difference between these groups?

Me: I’m not sure.

Dr. Lamkin: The former were mostly Protestant, while the newer immigrants were Catholic. They had no social theology curbing alcohol, and forming poor communities in cities, became viewed as the out-of-work, “over-the tracks” drinking poor. This is the link to poverty – some felt eliminating alcohol from the nation would cure these neighborhoods and provide the moral leadership needed to get the working. But probably their drinking had less to do with their economic status than other factors, such as the job market.

Me: Wow. So the guilt over slavery, the change in immigration, and our whiskey exports helped formed the theology we hear today from many fundamentalist churches? Huh. I wonder what some of my conservative Baptist brothers would think of that explanation if I said it?

So then help me make this connection. When looking at Jesus in the gospels, especially regarding his first miracle, “The Water to Wine” – I’ve heard some explanations that the ancient world watered their wine, and it wasn’t really alcoholic in the way we think today. Is this true?

Dr. Lamkin: No, no, not really. True that they watered down the wine. But the wine was very concentrated to begin with (“strong wine” in some translations; “mixed wine” includes water). It probably mixed it down to the strength of beer today 5-6% alcohol. Still quite enough for one to feel the effect.

Me: Which makes sense, because if the wine wasn’t really alcoholic, why would the Bible contain the warnings against drunkenness?

Dr. Lamkin: Exactly. But notice that this historical revision comes from when? Commentators from the early 1900s. Makes sense. It was hard preach 100% abstinence if Jesus drank wine! This essentially needed to be explained away.

–

Interesting, huh? What do you think?

Last week, I gave a talk with Nick M called “Miller Genuine Draft and the Kingdom of God.” We explored the Christian’s view of alcohol, and not simply from a moralistic perspective. I think I’ll do several posts on the topic, outlining a few of our points, but also adding extra research, thoughts, and questions that came up, but maybe we didn’t include in the final talk.

This time, let me start with just asking, “What does God think of alcohol?”

Wine is mentioned 234 in the scriptures (NIV). 194 in the Old Testament, 40 in the New Testament. From Noah to Revelation, it’s present in scripture. Let’s see what’s written.

Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise. (Proverbs 20.1 NIV)

Woe to those who rise early in the morning
to run after their drinks,
who stay up late at night
till they are inflamed with wine. ~ Prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 5.11 NIV)

Go eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do. ~ Solomon (Ecclesiastes 9.7)

He makes grass grow for the cattle,
and plants for man to cultivate—
bringing forth food from the earth:
wine that gladdens the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine,
and bread that sustains his heart.
(Psalm 104.14,15 NIV)

Hmm. How about the New Testament?

Watch out! Don’t let me find you living in careless ease and drunkenness, and filled with the worries of this life. Don’t let that day catch you unaware, as in a trap. For that day will come upon everyone living on the earth. ~ Jesus (Luke 21.34 NLT)

Be very careful, then, how you live – not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. ~ Paul (Ephesians 5.15 NIV)

Six stone waterpots were standing there; they were used for Jewish ceremonial purposes and held twenty to thirty gallons each. Jesus told the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” When the jars had been filled to the brim, he said, “Dip some out and take it to the master of ceremonies.” So they followed his instructions.

When the master of ceremonies tasted the water that was now wine, not knowing where it had come from (though, of course, the servants knew), he called the bridegroom over. “Usually a host serves the best wine first,” he said. “Then, when everyone is full and doesn’t care, he brings out the less expensive wines. But you have kept the best until now!”

11This miraculous sign at Cana in Galilee was Jesus’ first display of his glory. And his disciples believed in him. ~ Apostle John (John 2 NLT)

TIME Magazine ran a cover story this past week on gay teens in America (The Battle Over Gay Teens, 10 October 2005). It was a remarkably perspectived article: interviewing both GLBT advocates, Exodus Internationals’ Scott Davis, and those in-between.

Also this week, Evan Wolfson, the author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to Marry, was on campus lecturing. I didn’t see him, but I am reading an autographed copy of his book, which was loaned to me by Karen Bush, campus minister of the rainbow-flag adorned United Church of Christ.

This is currently a fish-in-the-sand issue for conservative and liberal Christians both to find those in a room who are like-minded. For the younger generation of Christ followers, however, it can’t be the case. It’s not that 20s Christians don’t have opinions on things like gay marriage, they just don’t hold it at the same level of moral imperative as the older generation.

The church’s view on this in fifteen years will be fascinating. I have no idea where it’ll go. It certainly isn’t simple.

Recently I found myself in a room of spiritual friends and leaders, thinking together of how to define spiritual maturity.

In previous years, we’ve often used the ambiguous phrasing: who “gets” it. It’s purposely undefined, because every time we seem to start writing definitions of maturity, they become cold and robotic, or cumbersome and wordy. Or both.

Trying to define an intuitive concept.

Thinking about who “gets” it as a follower of Christ is not supposed to be a judgemental activity. It’s so much more a thoughtful inclusion: a mental and heart loop that says, “who do I want to connect with? Who is as resolved as I am to follow Jesus even on the days we both can’t find up?

So we finally came up with some sentences that help create a definition. Today I sat and refined them with my thoughts, and came up with the following:

——
Someone who “gets” it:
- describes a living relationship with God that would remain even if their community fell off the map
- in awe
- makes personal life choices under God: wants God’s way
- returns to the scriptures again and again to find God’s way
- believes that life is short and we only have one life to live; feels that Jesus’ Great Commission applies personally
- embraces personal weaknesses – knows that God shows real spiritual power in them
- emotionally understands their “lostness”; “forgiven much loves much”
- oriented towards others
- highly values “we” – community, hospitality, sharing lives and possessions
- derives sense of purpose from the bigger vision of the Kingdom of God
—–