welcome rick!

my friend, pastor and fellow st. louis fan rick bennett recently resurrected his blog. welcome to the blogosphere rick! you've finally found a sufficient medium for your provocative rants, theological/biblical/ethical ruminations and, perhaps most importantly, your never ending dissections of movies, media and culture. let the dialog begin!

on a completely different note, in their immanent wisdom espn decided to transform rob neyer's insightful baseball columns into one of their 'in' features. thus, they now expect me to pay $4.95 per month or $40 a year to read a column that i have frequented for almost 2 years...so, if you are interested in joining my diabolical plan to crash their server, please let me know. seamheads unite!

happy haiku friday!

here in the cube

just about ready to go

bela on banjo


if you would like to participate in haiku friday, send me some verse. a standard haiku has a 5 - 7 - 5 consonant pattern and is designed to shake or startle people into reflection.

i'll look forward to hearing from you.

the fire has abated, but the embers are still burning...

as i read my own words, which were liberally salted with anger and (what i hope is) righteous indignation, i couldn't help but hear the gentle command of christina, one of my afterschool kids: "jeff, stop being so serious."

christina, i am trying to obey! this afternoon, instead of reading the heady N.T. Wright tome that is weighing down my satchel, i picked up mike yaconelli's Dangerous Wonder instead. though i have never read him before, i have found his words refreshing and energizing. i was particularly struck by the following paragraphs:

"Jesus was a dangerous man--dangerous to the power structure, dangerous to the church, dangerous to the crowds of people who followed Him.

Shouldn't the followers of Christ also be dangerous? Shouldn't everyone be awed and dazzled by Christians? Shouldn't Christians be known by the fire in their souls, the wild-eyed gratitude in their faces, the twinkle in their eyes, and a holy mischief in their demeanors? Shouldn't Christianity be considered dangerous--unpredictable, threatening to the status quo, living outside the lines, uncontrollable, fearless, wild, beyond categorization or definition? Shouldn't those who call themselves Christians be filled with awe, astonishment and amazement."

i thought the whole passage was insightful, but i was particularly intrigued by the phrase 'holy mischief.' how can i start using the subversive, buck the system, iconoclastic part of my personality to replace the dullness and ugliness of this world with the engaging wonder and inexplicable, vibrant beauty of God's presence, God's rule, God's love. I can hear Yaconelli's voice in my head paraphrasing the Apostle Peter: "What good is it if your teachers and bosses put you in the corner for merely making cynical remarks or ridiculous jokes about the death of the world? But, if you are put in the corner for replacing the death of the world with words that bring forth life, or for encouraging people to put aside their dull, boring sin for unexpected relationships and quirky attempts to serve, it is commendable before God."

st. francis, rich, merton, the defranzas, these great saints have holy mischief in their eyes. i hope that, by God's grace, there is a bit in mine as well.

today's scheduled discussion on discipleship has been pre-empted by the following rant...

with all due respect to the southern baptists whom i am honored to serve with and deeply love, i am finding it harder and harder to stomach the reactionary conservatism of the national convention. yesterday we heard that the convention voted down a proposal that would have encouraged southern baptist churchgoers to remove their children from public schools. today, they announced that they are withdrawing from the largely evangelical baptist world alliance (bwa) because the bwa has "taken anti-american stances, has become tolerant of liberal theology and wrongly accepted the cooperative baptist fellowship" a group that has had the gall to critique the supposedly inerrant faith and practice of the sbc.

to be honest, i found yesterday's news appalling. i couldn't believe that such a recommendation would even move out of committee, much less make it to the convention floor. christ did not call us to come out of the world, or the public schools for that matter, but to faithfully incarnate his gospel within the world. it is our passionate commitment to christ and his subversive gospel, not our disdain and condemnation of the structures and the individuals of this world, that will make us strangers and aliens in this place. brothers and sisters, let's focus on incarnating the gospel and extending the overwhelming compassion of Christ in our public schools, the hallways of corporate america, the projects of the inner-cities and anywhere that might be referred to as 'the public square.' my prayer is that our legacy will be one of incarnation and compassion, not the creation and conservation of evangelical culture.

today's news that the sbc is pulling out of the bwa just added insult to injury. i would not argue that schism is necessarily sinful, after all st. francis' gentle distinction of his mendicant order from the rank and file clergy of the late medieval period, luther's separation from rome and bonhoeffer and the confessing church's distinction from the national church of germany all seemed necessary and appropriate. however, schism, much like war, has grave consequences and, as such should be considered a 'last resort' and, if necessary, should be performed with a heavy heart. based on these assumptions, I think that the sbc's decisions are arrogant and unwise.

the first reason they cited for separation, that the bwa has "taken anti-american stances," was undoubtedly the most ridiculous. unbiblical doctrine and gross conduct that is unbecoming the gospel are reasons to separate. questionable patriotism is not. it seems like the sbc's unflinching denominational support (they were the only major denomination to officially support it) of the unjust (anyone who wants to challenge this contention better be ready to explain how this war squares with Augustine's conception) Iraq war the and their willingness to let president bush turn their convention into a campaign rally has truly skewed their perspective. at some point we need to ask ourselves whether we are AMERICAN christians or CHRISTIAN americans. the kingdom we serve is not of this world. thus, any attempt to equate america with God's reign is utterly ridiculous. brothers and sisters, let us put aside our trust in chariots and horses in order to have a deeper, more abiding faith in God as well a more passionate, unrelenting commitment to Christ's church.

i am tempted to continue with a rebuttal of their next two reasons, especially their anger at the acceptance of the CBF (what was the bwa to do, stick their head in the sand and act like this group didn't exist? My good friend told me that one of the 'knockout questions' the "International Missions Board" asks candidates is whether they have ever been a member of or associated with the CBF in any way. Bloody hell, what are they afraid of, double agents?!), but every bit of discernment I have (i readily admit that supplies are limited) suggests that it is time to stop ranting and get back to work.

Lord God, enable me to be as gracious with the missteps and sin of my brothers and sisters as you are with me. in the midst of my anger, help me to refrain from reflecting the SBC's error by impulsively pushing City on a Hill to sever all ties with the national SBC. i confess that far too often my criticism is virulent and vengeful. teach me how to express criticism in constructive and loving ways.

if you want to read more about the SBC's decision, visit CT's Weblog.

if this post left you in need of comic relief, feel free to read CT's interview with w.

In Memoriam: Ralph Wiley 1952-2004

Ralph Wiley was the senior writer of Espn's Page 2 and the author of the first Sports Illustrated feature (on Eric Davis) that I remember reading. One of his Page 2 companions said it best when he noted that Wiley wrote with "gravitas." Whether he was writing about baseball, boxing, basketball or the issue of race Wiley spoke with power and precision. Moreover, instead of feigning objectivity or indifference, Wiley almost always shared how the story connected with and influenced his experience. R-Dub was a rare writer indeed.

I haven't read any of his longer works, which include Born to Play: The Eric Davis Story or Why Black People Tend to Shout. The latter is now officially on my list.

For more about Wiley, check out Page 2's: A Writer, Celebrated.

on the journey from cynicism to credo

although i have highly developed, cocksure defense mechanisms that suggest otherwise, i have always struggled with doubt. these doubts have ranged from the trivial, like when, as a five year old, i anxiously doubted whether i had eaten the tasty looking, but poisonous pellets my father scattered upon the lawn, to crucial, like when the mere thought of preaching a sermon or leading a youth retreat would reduce me to lying on a cold tile floor in the fetal position.

fortunately, over the past four years i have slowly begun to believe that i am who God says i am in Christ (i.e., chosen, predestined, adopted, redeemed, for more indicatives see Eph. 1 or Romans 8). Whether this hesitant, yet clearly progressive movement from cynicism to credo is the result of the deeper sense of self-identification that some call 'maturity,' the result of finding a place that i can truly call home, the fruit and evidence of the indwelling Spirit or, most likely, a funky collaboration of these reasons, i really don't know.

however, i do know that by God's grace i am ready to start walking from the place of doubt towards the place of belief or what uncle henri would call the movement from "the house of fear to the house of love." anyway, to make a short introduction long, i would like to begin chronicling my personal credo or statement of faith. these entries will appear now and then under the title Credo. so, here goes...

i believe in God.

• i believe he is our creator, though he often chose to do so in inscrutable ways.
  
• i believe that he is good, as evidenced in the wonderful abandon of children, the beautiful, rhythmic pounding of the waves upon singing beach and his inerrant faithfulness to his often faithless people.
  
• i believe that God is a unity in community of three personal beings, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. each of these beings works all things to the ultimate good of both the godhead and those who have been called according to his purpose.
  
• i believe that God loves to communicate. this divine gift of gab is readily apparent in the 'book of creation' as well as in the tanak, the NT and, supremely, through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
  
• i do not believe that i have a grip on God, but i believe that he has a firm hold on me.

thus ends my first entry. please note that i am not trying to write a systematic theology or produce a highly learned treatise. i'm merely providing a personal, narrative account of my faith. hopefully, if you keep this intent in mind, you'll be able to forgive the apparently naive and undoubtedly cliche ways that i express myself.

concerning my second religion...
as much as i loathe the cubs, i love watching mark prior pitch. his flawless mechanics, bulldog mentality and willingness to brushback barry bonds have made him one of my favorites. a pitching prodigy like prior almost makes me wish the cardinals had also sucked for years on end. then, we could also have a respectable starting rotation.

in the midst of your silence...

teach me how to listen,

open my hands to receive,

enable me to believe,

that i am indeed your beloved.