Author: Elliot

  • The Truth Project: Coming Later Than Expected

    Last Wednesday, everything was set up and ready to go at church for the kickoff of the Truth Project. The meal had been made, the tables had been set up, and the discussion leaders had all gotten there. The problem was, it had started snowing at around noon that day, and at 6 p.m. it showed no signs of stopping. I had driven to the church on Hannegan Road, and someone who got to the church 15 minutes after I did said there were now two cars in the ditch and traffic was backed up.

    Only about half of the people signed up came, so it was decided that dinner would be served, but the showing of the first DVD would be postponed until next week. So, while I expected to be writing my thoughts on the first lesson this week, it won’t happen until next week.

  • The Truth Project Review


    Beginning later this month, my church will be going through a 12-lesson DVD curriculum put out by Focus on the Family called The Truth Project. During the first six weeks (those that take place during Lent), we will gather on Wednesdays to have dinner together, watch one of the lessons, and then discuss it afterwards in small groups. After a two-week break around Holy Week and Easter, we’ll pick back up again, except some of the small groups will move to homes instead of everyone getting together at the church.

    I’m very excited about this. I have not gone through the curriculum with a group, but I have watched all of the DVDs and think that overall it is a very well-done curriculum. It is designed to help Christians have a Christian worldview, to transform them into people who follow Christ in all of life, and I hope that this will be the effect in our church.

    While this is going on at church, I’m going to be reviewing each lesson on this blog. I looked around the Internet and couldn’t find a good review of the whole curriculum, so I hope to provide that here. Overall, as I said, I think it is very well done, but I don’t agree with everything in it, and I plan on making note of those things that I think could have been done better or those things that I think could cause problems in the long run. I don’t want to do this in order to gripe at Focus on the Family or the people behind the Truth Project, because as I mentioned, I think this is a very good curriculum overall. I just hope to provide some good critical reflection on it. After all, this series seems designed to help Christians think critically, and so I will approach it with a critical eye – not to tear down, but in hopes of building up.

    Update: I’m going to put links here to my reviews of each individual lesson.

    1: Veritology (What is Truth?)

    2: Philosophy and Ethics (Says Who?)

    3: Anthropology (Who is Man?)

    4: Theology (Who is God?)

    5: Science (What is True?)

    6: History (Whose Story?)

    7: Sociology (The Divine Imprint)

    8: Unio Mystica (Am I Alone?)

    9: The State (Whose Law?)

    10: The American Experiment (Stepping Stones) – Summary

    10: The American Experiment (Stepping Stones) – My Thoughts

    11: Labor (Created to Create)

    12: Community (God Cares, Do I?)

  • January 2009: Books Read

    1. Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century by John Stott. This book has been re-issued recently with the more up-to-date subtitle “The Challenge of Preaching Today,” but the version I read was the older one. I’ve long admired John Stott, and when I read this book, I found that he had some sensible things to say about preaching. He begins the book by giving a brief sketch of the history of preaching, and then addressing some contemporary objections to preaching. He continues to flesh out his reasons for thinking preaching is so important by giving some theological foundations for preaching. The next three chapters I found the most practical, the first of which was called “Preaching as Bridge-Building.” In it he talks about how a preacher might make the Bible more relevant to a contemporary audience. The next two chapters, “The Call to Study” and “Preparing Sermons,” deal with the nuts and bolts of putting together a sermon. He then closes the book with two chapters dealing with four characteristics that a good preacher should have: sincerity, earnestness, courage and humility.

    These last two chapters, in my mind, set this book apart from other books on preaching that I have read. Stott, a long-time preacher himself, knows where good preachers get their power from, and it isn’t (just) eloquence. It is the character of the preacher and the working of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the listeners that give a message its force.

    2. The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries by Rodney Stark. I bought this book in the late ’90s for a religion class in college, but only had to read about three chapters. I heard so many good things about it in seminary that I decided to get it off my shelf and read the rest of it that I didn’t originally have to read for class.

    Stark is a sociologist of religion who, before this book, had not spent much time looking into the history of religion. He insists in the preface that he is not a historian, nor is he a New Testament scholar; he’s just a sociologist who uses this book to look at the early history of Christianity with a sociologist’s eye (since this book was published in 1997, though, he has made several more forays into the history of religion).

    It would take too much space to review the book in detail, but suffice it to say that it was eye-opening. A few things that Stark argues are: that Christianity was not initially a proletarian movement, but it appealed to the privileged classes, that one of the reasons why people in the ancient world were so drawn to Christianity was the way Christians cared for the sick during epidemics, that Christian women enjoyed higher status in the community than their pagan counterparts, that one reason why Christianity thrived in cities was because it had a better capacity to solve chronic urban problems than anything else, and that “Christianity brought a new conception of humanity to a world saturated with capricious cruelty and the vicarious love of death” (214). Definitely a great read, even for someone who doesn’t have a background in sociology.

    3. Not Even A Hint: Guarding Your Heart Against Lust, by Joshua Harris. Like many Christian young men, I’ve had my struggles with lust (that’s not to say that these struggles are all a thing of the past, but I hope that the worst struggles are over). So when I was in the library a few weeks ago, this book by Joshua Harris (of I Kissed Dating Goodbye fame) caught my eye. I read I Kissed Dating Goodbye about 10 years ago, when it was making big waves in my circle of friends. I thought it was a pretty good book, but I had never done the casual, aimless, “looking for a good time” dating that Harris had kissed goodbye to, so it didn’t change my life.

    This is a small book, and a quick read. It comes in three parts: “The Truth About Lust,” “In the Thick of the Battle” and “Strategies for Long-Term Change.” The best part of the book, I thought, was chapter three of part one, called “You Can’t Save Yourself.” In it, he makes the case that a person can’t overcome struggles with lust (or any persistent sin) merely by deciding to. Legalism leads either to disillusionment and self-loathing (if you fail) or self-righteousness (if you succeed – and you will never succeed for long if you have fallen into self-righteousness). Instead, the Christian should realize that he or she is justified and forgiven by Christ’s work on the Cross, and that he or she is being sanctified, made holy, by his Spirit:

    And only the Spirit can transform us. Our job is to invite His work, participate with it, and submit more and more of our thoughts, actions and desires to Him. (p. 57)

    Harris goes on in the rest of the book to give practical tips on what that can look like: creating a custom-tailored plan, understanding how men and women are different in this area, dealing with masturbation, dealing with temptations in media, becoming accountable to others, using Scripture to fight lies and sowing so that we reap holiness. I particularly found his list of Scriptures helpful, so here they are: Job 31:11-12, Romans 8:6, Galatians 6:7-8, Romans 13:14, Matthew 5:29-30, 2 Timothy 2:22, Colossians 3:5-6, Ephesians 5:3, 1 Corinthians 6:18-20, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6, Proverbs 6:25-27, Psalm 101:3, Romans 14:12, Hebrews 12:6, James 1:15, Proverbs 5:3-5, Proverbs 5:8-11, Psalm 84:10-12, Lamentations 3:24-26, Proverbs 19:23, Matthew 5:8, Psalm 11:7, Isaiah 33:17, Psalm 119:9-11.

    All in all, I think this is a great little book to give young men and women encouragement and help in defeating lust.

    4. A Holy Meal: The Lord’s Supper in the Life of the Church, by Gordon T. Smith. I preached a sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 recently at my church, and read this short (124 pages) book as part of my research. Smith is a professor at Regent, and one of my regrets about my time there is that I never got to take one of his classes, especially the popular “Spiritual Discernment” and “The Meaning of the Sacraments.”

    However, reading this book seems like the next best thing to taking the latter class, since he spends the time expanding on what the Lord’s Supper is all about. Chapter 2 (“The Sacramental Principle”) alone is worth the price of the book. I found his discussion of signs, photographs and symbols immensely helpful in understanding what is going on at the Lord’s Supper. The bulk of the book is taken up with looking at seven different aspects of the Lord’s Supper, based on seven different Bible texts: The Lord’s Supper as memorial, as fellowship with Christ and with one another, as a table of mercy, as a renewal of baptismal vows, as bread from heaven, as a declaration of hope, and as a joyous thanksgiving celebration. Although short, there was enough to chew on in this book that I could have preached a whole series on the Lord’s Supper.

  • Communion as Worship (I Corinthians 11:17-34)

    This is the sermon I gave last Sunday, February 1, at my church. The audio can be found at the church’s Web site, http://www.bellinghamcovenantchurch.org.

    This is the fourth sermon in a series on worship, and one very important thing that the church does when it gathers together to worship is eat the Lord’s Supper together. It is a mysterious thing, and different Christians have tried to express that mystery through the many names that are used to call it: the Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, the Eucharist, the Lord’s Table.

    Many of us only have a vague idea of what we’re doing when we take the Lord’s Supper. When I was 15, I was part of a Roman Catholic choir that sang in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. We sang at a Mass one morning, and after singing we all got in line and the priest gave us the “host” – a wafer. I grew up in a Baptist church, and I was used to eating cubes of white bread at communion. I had no idea what to do with this thing that had all these elaborate designs on it, so I put it in my pocket. It wasn’t until I got back to my seat that I looked around and saw everyone else eating theirs, so I took it out of my pocket and ate it without anyone looking. Turns out I probably should have left it in my pocket, because one of the Catholics in the choir scolded me later because only Catholics are supposed to take Mass in a Catholic church.

    This passage helps us to know more clearly what we are doing when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper together. It also helps us to understand good ways and bad ways to celebrate the Lord’s Supper by showing us the bad example of the Corinthian church. The passage comes in three sections. The first one has to do with what is wrong in Corinth. The second has to do with what the Lord’s Supper is supposed to be, and the third has to do with how to celebrate it.

    One: The nature of the problems in Corinth, and of this particular problem (17-22).

    Corinth was an old Greek city that fought hard against the expansion of the Romans. It was destroyed by the Romans in 146 BC, and then was re-founded by Julius Caesar in 46 BC. It is located at a strategic place in Greece, where the mainland meets the large southern peninsula called the Pelepponesus. It became a major trading center because of this location. It was one of the largest cities in the Empire, and it was one of the most influential because of its imperial backing. Status – what class or social group you belonged to – was very important in Corinth, and as a result many of the problems the church in Corinth had were because of their cultural preoccupation with status.

    This problem that Paul starts to deal with in verse 17 is one of those problems. The church in Corinth was a house church, or a series of house churches, like most early churches were. They would celebrate the Lord’s Supper every week, but they would conduct it like every other meal in their culture – that is, they would divide everyone up by status. The rich people were in a special room, and the poor people were out in the atrium. Even at one table, people were served different food based on their status. If you were rich and had high status, you’d get the lobster. If you had low status, you’d get a burger from McDonald’s. This is what was happening in Corinth. The rich, high-status people were getting together beforehand, gorging themselves and getting drunk, and the poor people would show up later and everyone would be laying around the table, belching.

    In verse 20, Paul says that because of this, they weren’t even really eating the Lord’s Supper. It was meant to be a common meal that was shared by everyone in the church, and the Corinthians made a travesty out of it by treating it like any other meal. They divided people up by class and they humiliated poor people.

    Today, it would be like saying, “We’re going to celebrate the Lord’s Supper today, and if your income is over $100,000, you can come first and have the biggest piece of bread.” And status doesn’t just have to do with money: it can be dividing people up by race, or by education, or how many children a person has, or whether people have tattoos, or whether people have children who are Christians – any difference has at least the potential to be divisive. If we divide over those things, we’re not really eating the Lord’s Supper either.

    Two: The nature of the Lord’s Supper (23-26).

    Paul decides that he’s got to remind the Corinthians of the basics. They have forgotten what the Lord’s Supper is all about, and so he takes them back to the Last Supper, the meal that Jesus ate with his disciples on the night before he was crucified. We could say a lot about what Paul says, because it’s packed with meaning. But for today, I’m going to point out four things that the Lord’s Supper is.

    First, It’s a memorial.

    “This is my body” and “Do this in remembrance of me.” Some of you may have come from a Catholic background, or you may just know that Catholics think the bread and wine actually turn into Jesus’ body and blood. There is a big theological word for this, called “transubstantiation.” They say that Jesus said, “This is my body,” and they say that he meant it was literally his body. But we don’t believe that, and here is an analogy that explains why. When Jesus said, “This is my body,” he was talking about the bread in the same way that we talk about photographs. I can show you a picture of myself and say, “This is me,” and you won’t be confused whether Elliot is the person speaking or the person in the photograph. In the same way, the bread does not literally and magically turn into Jesus’ body. Jesus’ disciples weren’t confused when he said “This is my body.” They didn’t ask, “Well, if that’s your body, then who are you?” They knew that when he said “This is my body,” he was talking about the bread as a symbol of his body.

    But some Protestant churches go all the way in the other direction, saying that the bread is only something we use to remind us of Jesus. Some churches don’t like to use the word “sacrament,” and call it an “ordinance” instead. They say that there’s nothing important or symbolic about the bread and wine, we just do it to remember.

    But we don’t go to that extreme either. We use the word “sacrament,” which just means “a symbol that has religious or spiritual significance for a community of faith.” Taking the Lord’s Supper isn’t just something we do to remember Jesus. It’s a symbol – like a flag, which represents the identity and aspirations of a nation, or a wedding ring, which represents the covenant commitment you have made to your husband or wife. Symbols are never just symbols. So the Lord’s Supper is “just bread and grape juice” in that they don’t magically turn into Jesus’ body and blood, but it is also not “just bread and grape juice” because it is a symbol. Paul himself says in chapter 10 of 1 Corinthians, The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?”

    If this is a little confusing to you, you’re not alone. I’ve been trying to explain symbols, but symbols can’t ever be fully explained. That’s why we use them – to signify something that we can’t fully put into words. There will always be some mystery when symbols are involved.

    To sum up this first point: We do this in remembrance of Jesus’ death and resurrection. It is a memorial, but it is not just a cerebral action. It’s not just something that happens in our mind. Eating and drinking turn it into something that we do with our whole being. As Gordon Smith says in his book, A Holy Meal, on the Lord’s Supper, “We need to come to the table regularly, when we feel like it and when we don’t, for the great danger is that we would forget. We can so easily forget. I do not mean that we no longer recall or believe that something happened. Rather, our forgetting is one of no longer living aligned with the reality and wonder of Christ’s death and resurrection. We fail to live in the light of this ancient event. So easily through neglect the cross and the resurrection no longer penetrate our present, enabling us to live in the light of the gospel.” (42-3)

    Second, the Lord’s Supper is fellowship (communion).

    In the church where I grew up, there were some impressive stained glass windows. There was one on the left of Jesus carrying a lamb, there was one on the right of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before his crucifixion, and there was one on the back wall of Jesus ascending up into heaven. At the bottom of all the windows, there was a little sign that said, “Given in memory of so-and-so.” At the front of the sanctuary there was a table, and on the table was written the words, “Do this in remembrance of me.” As a little kid, I thought that this was just a table given in honor of some person who had died, and I thought it strange that there was no name on it.

    But my little kid thoughts were not right. Jesus isn’t just a dear friend who has died, and who we remember by eating bread and drinking wine or grape juice. He’s alive, and he is here with us when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. That’s why we sometimes hear this supper called “Communion,” or fellowship. We are in communion with one another, and we are in communion with him. That’s what the big problem was in the Corinthian church: they weren’t celebrating the Lord’s Supper in the right way because they weren’t in communion with one another. They didn’t look at each other and say, “We are one. Jesus has made us one.”
    Even though it’s a little out of place, I’d like to mention what Paul says in verse 29 about “discerning the body.” The “body” that he is talking about is probably not the bread, or Jesus’ literal body. Paul is talking about divisions in the church, and so the “body” he is talking about is the body of Christ, the church.

    So the practical effect of the Lord’s Supper being communion is that we should not come to communion when we are not at peace with one another. If we are refusing to talk to someone, or holding a grudge against them, we should not be participating in communion. In the Lord’s Prayer we repeat the words that Jesus taught us to pray: “forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” We need to be at peace before we participate in communion. If we want to be at peace with God, then we have to be at peace with other people.

    Of course, sometimes these things are out of our control. Here is where Paul’s words in Romans 12:18 are helpful: he says that we should be at peace with everyone, “insofar as it depends on us.” We should do everything in our power to be at peace with people before participating in communion. But if we have tried to be reconciled with another person – if we have written a letter and they don’t respond, or we’ve called them and they’ve hung up on us, or we’ve tried to talk to them and they’ve ignored us, then we’ve done all we can do.

    Third, the Lord’s Supper is a covenant renewal ceremony.

    “This cup is a new covenant in my blood.” Jesus is saying that his blood, his sacrifice, replaces the old covenant, or agreement between God and people, written about in Exodus 24:3-8. This is the new covenant that Jeremiah wrote about in Jeremiah 31:31-34, when God said that he would write the law on our hearts.

    All covenants are represented and remembered through symbolic acts. In the Old Testament, it usually involved animal sacrifice. An animal would be cut up into a few pieces. Part of the animal would be sacrificed – burnt up on an altar – and part of it would be eaten in a covenant meal.

    In the new covenant, Jesus is both the sacrifice and the one we are in covenant with. Earlier in 1 Corinthians (5:7), Paul called Jesus the Passover Lamb who has been sacrificed. In the church, those symbolic acts that we use to remember the covenant are baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Whenever we take the Lord’s Supper, we remember the covenant we made with God when we were baptized.

    So the Lord’s Supper is a covenant renewal ceremony. We come to the table to receive mercy and forgiveness for all the ways we have not lived up to who we should be, and to declare our intention to renew the covenant.

    Fourth, the Lord’s Supper is a declaration of thanksgiving and hope.

    “Eucharist” is one of the fancy words that is used to describe the Lord’s Supper, and it comes from the Greek word for thanksgiving, used here in verse 24. That’s all it means: thanksgiving. When we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, it really is a celebration. Jesus gave thanks, so we should too. We give thanks to God the Father for creating the world and us, we give thanks to Jesus for saving us by sacrificing himself on the cross, and we give thanks for the gift of the Holy Spirit to live in us and comfort us.

    The Lord’s Supper is often linked with the Passover, and it should be: the Last Supper was probably a Passover meal, and Jesus is referred to in the Bible as the Passover lamb. But the Lord’s Supper was also associated in the early church with the peace offering of Leviticus 7:11-18. It is a way to give thanks and celebrate.

    “as often as you eat this break and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” This meal that we share together doesn’t just look back at the Last Supper that Jesus shared with his disciples. It looks forward to another meal that Jesus will eat with us when he returns. This meal is called the Marriage Supper of the Lamb in Revelation 19. We look backward in thankfulness, and forward in hope.
    The Lord’s Supper should remind us that, even though things may be bad in the world now, that’s not the way things are always going to be. We don’t have to ignore the bad things in the world, and we don’t have to be fearmongers. We can look at the world realistically and say that things are going to be well in the end.

    This also encourages us in mission. We know that all will be well in the end, and this should encourage us to share this hope with our friends and neighbors.

    Three: How to celebrate the Lord’s Supper (27-34).

    Moving on to the last part of the passage, I’m going to talk a bit about how to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. I’m not going to talk about whether you should pass the plates or have little glasses or whether you should celebrate once a month or every week or four times a year. I’m going to talk about what should be going on in our hearts when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

    There are a few words here that have been misunderstood over the years in a lot of churches. They are found in verse 27: “in an unworthy manner.” These words have been used to encourage people to think that just because they are sinful, they can’t take the Lord’s Supper because that would mean they are taking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner. But looking at the context, that isn’t what Paul means at all. When he warns the Corinthians against taking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, he telling them that they shouldn’t abuse it. They shouldn’t make the Lord’s Supper about status.

    In verse 28, “Examine yourselves” doesn’t mean “make sure you don’t have any sin.” We come to the Lord’s Table to receive mercy, and if we waited until we were all without sin, no one would be able to come. Jesus is our host at this table, and Jesus ate with sinners! Jesus welcomes us at this table the same way he welcomed and forgave Peter after he denied him.

    “Examine yourselves” does not mean “make sure you don’t have any sin.” Rather, it means, “Repent of your sins so that you can come to the table with thanksgiving, knowing that your sins are forgiven.”

    “Discern the body” is talking about the Body of Christ, the church. The Lord’s Supper is a table of mercy where you can receive forgiveness, but is not just about you. It is not even just about you and Jesus. It is also about the Body of Christ, the church, coming together to celebrate Jesus’ death and resurrection. The Lord’s Supper is not just any meal; it is THE meal at which the church declares that we are ONE in Christ. The church is not a club of like-minded people getting together because we like the socializing. We are, or ought to be, a diverse group gathered around Jesus Christ. There should be no divisions at the Lord’s Table. If we divide ourselves, if we start to think that some are better than others, Paul says that it is possible that God will judge us.

    Jesus is the only thing that can keep us together. I read an article in the Washington Post recently called: “Why the Ideological Melting Pot is Getting So Lumpy.” Here is an excerpt:

    “About two in three Americans say they prefer to live around people belonging to different races, religions and income groups. In reality, however, survey research shows that people are increasingly clustering together among those who are just like themselves, especially on the one attribute that ties the others together — political affiliation.

    Nearly half of all Americans live in “landslide counties” where Democrats or Republicans regularly win in a rout. In the 2008 election, 48 percent of the votes for president were cast in counties where President-elect Barack Obama or Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won by more than 20 percentage points, according to the Pew Research Center.

    The clustering of Democrats in Democratic areas and Republicans in Republican areas has been intensifying for at least three decades: In 1976, only about a quarter of all Americans lived in landslide counties. In 1992, a little more than a third of America was landslide country.

    A third of both Obama’s and McCain’s supporters have said they “detest” the other guy.

    A consequence of such polarization is that large numbers of Americans no longer have much contact with people belonging to the other party. Many feel the views of their political opponents are not just wrong but incomprehensible.”

    This is the way the world is: people congregate with other people who are the same race, the same income, the same political affiliation. The Bible tells us that the church should not be like this. We are called to love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us. We are called to preach the gospel to the whole world; not only to people who are just like us. The Lord’s Supper tells us that we are one in Christ, and we should always be reminded to draw others into that fellowship. This is what the world needs.

    Finally, I’d like to reiterate that the Lord’s Supper is a time of hope. We don’t just look back during the Lord’s Supper; we look forward.
    If you don’t like getting together with the Body of Christ and celebrating the Lord’s Supper together, you probably won’t like the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. If it is all about you and Jesus, and you don’t think you need to be a part of a community of believers, then you’re going to hate what will happen when Jesus comes back. Because it’s not going to be just you and Jesus; there are going to be a LOT of people there. There are no lone ranger Christians. There are no Christians who can have a good relationship with Jesus without having good relationships with his church. Some of you may have had bad experiences, or been parts of dysfunctional churches, and I wish that had not been the case. But past experiences are no reason to give up on trying to be the community that Jesus wants us to be.

  • A Tragedy and an Epiphany

    I preached a sermon at church last Sunday, and I hope to get the full transcript of it posted soon. I didn’t quite complete the manuscript before I started condensing it into an outline, so I will have to go back and finish the manuscript with what actually came out of my mouth.

    Yesterday I went to the memorial service of a little girl who died tragically in a car accident, just two days before her eighth birthday. Her family is friends with Mary’s family (I have met the girl’s aunt and grandparents), and so I went. It was very sad, but also hopeful: the little girl knew Jesus and her family looks forward to being reunited with her someday. I’m thankful for the support that the community has shown the family – it looked like there were over 1,000 people there yesterday – and I hope that some who are far from God would be drawn near as they contemplate this tragedy.

    After the service, I was milling around with Mary and her parents when a man came up to me and asked if I had preached at the Covenant church the day before. I said yes, and he said it was “awesome.” I’m very thankful that he decided to come up to me and give me the compliment, but as I reflected on it I thought the interaction was more momentous than just the giving and receiving of a compliment. If I’m a pastor, I thought, I’m a public figure, and there is at least the potential for people to recognize me wherever I go.

    This means I really need to make sure I don’t act like a jerk to people. I need to not be rude or impatient when I am waiting in line, at a store, or in traffic. Of course, it’s always important to make sure I don’t act like a jerk, but this interaction drove it home to me that now I am accountable in a way that I didn’t necessarily ask for. Becoming a pastor doesn’t necessarily make me on a higher, holier plane than any other Christian, but I am already much more in the public eye than I used to be, and I should be conscious of that.

  • 25 Things You May Not Have Known

    I posted this a few days ago on Facebook, but I thought that perhaps my readers who are not on Facebook would enjoy a chance to hear 25 “fun facts” about me.

    1. I rarely respond to anything forwarded to me, so it is a surprise that I am doing this. If I haven’t responded to something you have forwarded, don’t take it personally. And I won’t take it personally if you don’t respond to this.

    2. I’ve been to 41 states, and will probably go to Oregon this spring. The hardest state to get to that I haven’t been in is Hawaii.

    3. I’ve worked at a camp, taught high school English, and now work as a school bus driver, even though I’ve never thought of myself as “good with kids.”

    4. My girlfriend and I met in Alaska, where we were both tour bus drivers in 2006.

    5. My favorite team sport to play is Ultimate Frisbee. I used to enjoy playing soccer, but haven’t done it in a long time. Aside from that, I only exercise because I think I should.

    6. I’ve never read the Da Vinci Code. I used to want to, but then I heard a very smug professor (not at Regent) say once that he always asks at the beginning of his religion classes who has read the Da Vinci Code (usually many people) and who has read the Bible (usually not many). He does that to illustrate how lightly Christians take the Bible even though they think it is God’s Word. I have read the Bible, and I kind of don’t want to read the Da Vinci Code because I don’t want to give that professor the satisfaction.

    7. I’d rather be very hot than very cold.

    8. I like chocolate, but I don’t like chocolate flavored things much. This includes chocolate cake and chocolate ice cream.

    9. I feel guilty about spending money on things I regard as nonessential.

    10. Books are essential.

    11. For many years most of the clothing I bought was from thrift stores. Now my girlfriend and her parents like to buy me clothes, and I like this arrangement.

    12. One of my favorite things that I bought at a thrift store was a navy blue set of coveralls with a United Airlines logo on one side of the front and the words “Ramp Service” on the other.

    13. I love reading P.G. Wodehouse novels.

    14. After many years of using PCs, I bought a Mac in December.

    15. I hope I don’t turn into a Mac snob.

    16. More of my iPod is sermons and lectures than music.

    17. But I love ’80s pop.

    18. My favorite football team is the Detroit Lions, and this is a major reason why I don’t watch the NFL much anymore.

    19. The first tape I received as a gift: “Gonna Make You Sweat” by C + C Music Factory. The first tape I bought myself: “Classic Queen” by Queen

    20. The first CD I received as a gift: “Bach’s Great Organ Works.” The first CD(s) I bought for myself: Led Zeppelin’s box set.

    21. I think of myself as being kind of shy, but I don’t mind public speaking.

    22. I’d like to write a book someday, but I’m not sure what about.

    23. I’ve gotten three speeding tickets, and have been in two accidents.

    24. I think John Calvin is not as bad a guy as he’s sometimes made out to be, but I wouldn’t call myself a Calvinist.

    25. I’ve never smoked a cigarette or cigar, but have smoked a pipe – once.

  • Holy Crapstone

    I love funny place names (like Hell, MI or Intercourse, PA, or even Valentines, VA), so naturally I loved this article from the NY Times on funny town and road names in the UK. Here it is, in full:

    January 23, 2009
    No Snickering: That Road Sign Means Something Else

    By SARAH LYALL
    CRAPSTONE, England — When ordering things by telephone, Stewart Pearce tends to take a proactive approach to the inevitable question “What is your address?”

    He lays it out straight, so there is no room for unpleasant confusion. “I say, ‘It’s spelled “crap,” as in crap,’ ” said Mr. Pearce, 61, who has lived in Crapstone, a one-shop country village in Devon, for decades.

    Disappointingly, Mr. Pearce has so far been unable to parlay such delicate encounters into material gain, as a neighbor once did.

    “Crapstone,” the neighbor said forthrightly, Mr. Pearce related, whereupon the person on the other end of the telephone repeated it to his co-workers and burst out laughing. “They said, ‘Oh, we thought it didn’t really exist,’ ” Mr. Pearce said, “and then they gave him a free something.”

    In the scale of embarrassing place names, Crapstone ranks pretty high. But Britain is full of them. Some are mostly amusing, like Ugley, Essex; East Breast, in western Scotland; North Piddle, in Worcestershire; and Spanker Lane, in Derbyshire.

    Others evoke images that may conflict with residents’ efforts to appear dignified when, for example, applying for jobs.

    These include Crotch Crescent, Oxford; Titty Ho, Northamptonshire; Wetwang, East Yorkshire; Slutshole Lane, Norfolk; and Thong, Kent. And, in a country that delights in lavatory humor, particularly if the word “bottom” is involved, there is Pratts Bottom, in Kent, doubly cursed because “prat” is slang for buffoon.

    As for Penistone, a thriving South Yorkshire town, just stop that sophomoric snickering.

    “It’s pronounced ‘PENNIS-tun,’ ” Fiona Moran, manager of the Old Vicarage Hotel in Penistone, said over the telephone, rather sharply. When forced to spell her address for outsiders, she uses misdirection, separating the tricky section into two blameless parts: “p-e-n” — pause — “i-s-t-o-n-e.”

    Several months ago, Lewes District Council in East Sussex tried to address the problem of inadvertent place-name titillation by saying that “street names which could give offense” would no longer be allowed on new roads.

    “Avoid aesthetically unsuitable names,” like Gaswork Road, the council decreed. Also, avoid “names capable of deliberate misinterpretation,” like Hoare Road, Typple Avenue, Quare Street and Corfe Close.

    (What is wrong with Corfe Close, you might ask? The guidelines mention the hypothetical residents of No. 4, with their unfortunate hypothetical address, “4 Corfe Close.” To find the naughty meaning, you have to repeat the first two words rapidly many times, preferably in the presence of your fifth-grade classmates.)

    The council explained that it was only following national guidelines and that it did not intend to change any existing lewd names.

    Still, news of the revised policy raised an outcry.

    “Sniggering at double entendres is a loved and time-honored tradition in this country,” Carol Midgley wrote in The Times of London. Ed Hurst, a co-author, with Rob Bailey, of “Rude Britain” and “Rude UK,” which list arguably offensive place names — some so arguably offensive that, unfortunately, they cannot be printed here — said that many such communities were established hundreds of years ago and that their names were not rude at the time.

    “Place names and street names are full of history and culture, and it’s only because language has evolved over the centuries that they’ve wound up sounding rude,” Mr. Hurst said in an interview.

    Mr. Bailey, who grew up on Tumbledown Dick Road in Oxfordshire, and Mr. Hurst got the idea for the books when they read about a couple who bought a house on Butt Hole Road, in South Yorkshire.

    The name most likely has to do with the spot’s historic function as a source of water, a water butt being a container for collecting water. But it proved to be prohibitively hilarious.

    “If they ordered a pizza, the pizza company wouldn’t deliver it, because they thought it was a made-up name,” Mr. Hurst said. “People would stand in front of the sign, pull down their trousers and take pictures of each other’s naked buttocks.”

    The couple moved away.

    The people in Crapstone have not had similar problems, although their sign is periodically stolen by word-loving merrymakers. And their village became a stock joke a few years ago, when a television ad featuring a prone-to-swearing soccer player named Vinnie Jones showed Mr. Jones’s car breaking down just under the Crapstone sign.

    In the commercial, Mr. Jones tries to alert the towing company to his location while covering the sign and trying not to say “crap” in front of his young daughter.

    The consensus in the village is that there is a perfectly innocent reason for the name “Crapstone,” though it is unclear what that is. Theories put forth by various residents the other day included “place of the rocks,” “a kind of twisting of the original word,” “something to do with the soil” and “something to do with Sir Francis Drake,” who lived nearby.

    Jacqui Anderson, a doctor in Crapstone who used to live in a village called Horrabridge, which has its own issues, said that she no longer thought about the “crap” in “Crapstone.”

    Still, when strangers ask where she’s from, she admitted, “I just say I live near Plymouth.”

  • January 13-24: A Black Hole (kind of) Explained

    It has been almost two weeks since my last post, so I’ll emerge from my silence to tell y’all what is going on. I don’t normally say “y’all” when speaking, because of my longstanding resistance to acquiring a southern accent (this is a story for another time), but I think it is sometimes appropriate because there’s no third person plural pronoun in English except for “y’all” and, if you’re from certain parts of the Northeast, “youse guys.”

    What has been going on in my life in the past almost two weeks has been this: mostly work. I continue to drive the same bus route every day, because the regular driver continues to be gone. I also have begun an 8-week adult Bible study class on Sunday mornings, using the John Stott study book on the Beatitudes. I also meet with the pastors once a week. I am scheduled to preach next week as part of a series my church is doing on worship, so I’m studying up on communion in preparation for preaching on I Corinthians 11:17-34. And finally, I continue to spend as much time as possible with Mary, because I like to.

  • The Year of Living Like Jesus

    For the past two years, when I have gone to visit family in Grand Rapids, MI, I have gone to Rob Bell’s Mars Hill Church. I am an unabashed church tourist, and I enjoy going to well-known churches just to see what they are like. I’ve been to Saddleback, the Crystal Cathedral, McLean Bible Church, John MacArthur’s church (I forget the name), and even the other Mars Hill Church (the one pastored by Mark Driscoll) in Seattle.

    On neither of the occasions I visited Mars Hill did Rob Bell speak. I don’t know whether he just likes to take time off over Christmas or what, but both times I’ve gone I’ve heard Ed Dobson speak instead. Ed Dobson is the former pastor of Calvary Church in Grand Rapids, and he stepped down several years ago because he was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s Disease. Even though the church tourist in me would have liked to hear Rob Bell, I am grateful to have heard Dr. Dobson (no relation to the other Dr. Dobson) speak, and to have had the opportunity to learn more about who he is.

    This past year, after reading A.J. Jacobs’ The Year of Living Biblically (which I also read, and reviewed here), he decided that he was going to spend a year living as much like Jesus as he possibly could. He grew a beard, read the Gospels every week, prayed for his enemies, voted the way he thought Jesus would want him to vote, and even went down to the bar a few times (after all, Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a drunkard).

    Here is a link to the story (plus a video interview) on ABC News:ABC News: Spending a Year Living Like Jesus

    I pray that all Christians have the courage to do this kind of thing more deliberately.

  • Archiving Bonhoeffer

    I read this brief but interesting article on FaithWorld today, about how the German government wants to put archived materials relating to theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer online:

    Germany is launching an appeal to save thousands of valuable letters and manuscripts which had belonged to Protestant theologian and Nazi resistance fighter Dietrich Bonhoeffer by digitalising them.

    The Berlin state library says it needs 40,000 euros to save the documents which it counts as one of its most prized collections. It wants to put about 6,200 pages of his work on the Internet to make them more widely available.

    The papers include the farewell letter Bonhoeffer wrote to his parents before his execution in a concentration camp in 1945, just days before the end of World War Two, for opposing Hitler. He was 39.

    Last summer, the library put the originals in non-corroding folders as the paper was in danger of falling apart and had been damaged by rusting paper clips. The collection also includes draft papers, sermons he held in Barcelona and New York as well as fragments from his book Ethics.