Can Christians be "Country First"

Ryan Bolger suggests that the McCain campaign slogan of "Country First" cannot be adopted by evangelicals. (He doesn't mention McCain by name, but it's clear who he has in mind.)

Although there would be many citizens who, for very understandable reasons, advocate this position, it is not a viable option for Evangelical Christians.

Evangelical Christians share the conviction that their first and primary task in life is to love God completely with their entire heart, mind, strength, and soul. They are also called to obey the second part of this command: to love their neighbors as themselves...Christians must refuse all allegiances that supersede their commitment to God and neighbor. We encourage Evangelical Christians to refuse putting “Country First”.

Can Christians put country first? It strikes me that Bolger is mixing categories and suggesting a contradiction where none exists. The theme of "Country First" is a political allegiance that does not rule out other commitments. Just as we can support one sports team over another doesn't mean we can't also support the other players in a different context. I think the mistake Bolger is making is thinking that allegiances are all pervasive and exhaustive, and that one cannot have allegiances in different contexts without a contradiction. Of course in the same context (e.g. politics) one can have contradictory allegiances, but when the contexts are different, the contradiction doesn't arise so easily.

Political allegiances simply mean you support particular policies and beliefs about government, (or in this case about a political party), they don't necessarily imply beliefs about faith . Just like a sport allegiance doesn't imply a political allegiance. I can hope that my sports team wins without alienating the other players in a different context. If I am a Los Angeles Dodger fan, does that mean I cannot love and support all the other non-Dodger fans? Can't I support one team and still love the other players?

I remember a talk that Tony Campolo gave about capitalism in which he asked whether Christians can be capitalists. "What's the motive for capitalism?" he asked. "Profit. What's the motive for Christians? Love. So how can Christians be capitalists?" Easy, I say. Because we can be motivated by different things in different contexts.

I can put "Country First" with respect to government policies, yet still value people with respect to faith. I can disagree with a family member about politics and still love them as my family and want the best for them.

Lack of Leadership

Wall street has its worst week ever and everybody's looking for answers. Jason Zweig of the Wall Street Journal states the obvious:

But what all of us are feeling is the loss of control we sense when we are faced with anything that is frightening, inexplicable and important. That lack of control not only makes us feel powerless; it also changes the way we view the world.

What's the church's role in this? Pastors are hardly financial experts, so do they understand their limitations and ignore it like my church is, or do they try to take the long view and argue that we're not to store treasures in heaven, and that what really matters isn't material? If the latter, what exactly is the application point to be made? One might take the view that the Kingdom of God is above this, but that runs the danger of being cold comfort when people need it most.

These are tough times, and everybody including me are waiting for bold leadership.

2012 is the New Y2K

The pastor of the church I attended in 1999 had a great idea. He gave a year-long series on the Book of Revelation. There was no better time in my lifetime that Revelation should have been preached than right before Y2K, at time when people where very apprehensive about the future.

The year 2012 presents another opportunity for such a series. The fringes of society (Coast to Coast AM, the History and Sci Fi Channels, etc.) are already talking about December 12, 2012 as the day the world will end. As it turns out, the Maya, who lived from roughly 250 -900 AD, were excellent calendar makers. And they ended their calendar on 12/12/21. Why then? No one really knows. Did they know something we don't? Maybe.

Either way, you can bet there will be movies in 2012 that will deal with the subject. Transformers director Michael Bay is reportedly eyeing Whitley Strieber's book, 2012: The War for Souls for a screen adaptation. Strieber was the author for the book that was the basis for the movie The Day After Tomorrow. Will the church be ready for such a discussion? I hope so.

As for me and my house, we won't be selling our possessions prior to the Big Day, but I can't think of a better time to talk about Revelations. The hype may not rival Y2K, but it sure would be interesting. Pastors - start your sermon preparation!

I've Been Published!

My photography book has just been published! Some of my best photographs finally see the printed page. It turned out pretty well. I used a company called Blurb, and they did a great job. Now I'm excited to publish another one. I think I'll try working a theme book rather than a "best of" edition like this one.

Click the image above to find out more (and maybe buy a copy) or click below to download a preview.

How to Have a Interesting Teaching Series

How about some fresh ideas for a teaching series? Instead of another series on a book of the Bible, what about focusing on top Christian thinkers (e.g. C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton)? My pastor is starting a new series on C.S. Lewis. The series should be a good one given that Lewis is his favorite writer. I'm sure glad he's willing to do a series on Lewis, I wish churches offered more classes on Christian writers. Tolkien, Chesterton are all great writers and have lessons for us.

Which reminds me that PBS once had a series of round table discussion on C.S. Lewis vs. Sigmund Freud based on a class that a professor had. It was really interesting and is perfect for a church class.

How about a series on Lewis's friends the Inkings? Or what about a class on Christian artists? Christian movie makers?

It seems to me churches should try to emulate Christian colleges and offer thought-provoking classes that are stimulating and cutting edge. Why do the same thing over again (do we really need another class on Romans)? There's so many possibilities out there, how about something new?

Review of Ben Stein's Expelled

Ben Stein has a documentary about Intelligent Design called Expelled that just came out this weekend. I decided to support it by going to the theater. Overall, it's pretty good - a camera follows Ben as he travels around meeting the bright lights of the ID movement (William Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer, etc). To his credit Ben also sits down with anti-ID man Richard Dawkins and also gets a few other sound bites from non-ID people.

I like that Ben's style is more low-key than the confrontational approach of hacks like Michael Moore - it makes the film easier to watch. It's also more conversational and educational - though it is light on actual arguments. Sure there are some, but it's a movie, we really can't expect much.

The two best parts of the movie were the interview with David Berlinski, (who needs his own show), and the interview with Dawkins. Ben actually gets some news out of the interview with Dawkins when he gets him to admit that ID is a reasonable position. And when Dawkins is pressed on the origins of life Dawkins surprisingly suggests panspermia as a solution.

Suggesting panspermia seems awfully desperate. Given Dawkins love for detailed explanations, it's strange that he hints at a solution so underdeveloped and weird. Perhaps it's a sign that natural explanations for the origin of life are really hard to come by.

The only element that bothered me was the last part of the film where Ben not only links Darwinism to the eugenics movement and the Nazi's (which has some historical links - but little relevance for debating ID), but the fact that Ben spends so much time visiting the Nazi death camps. I don't think it's really necessary to show pictures of Holocaust victims in order to make a point about Darwinism.

Just because some Darwinians were Nazis doesn't mean they all are. I think linking those two is somewhat dishonest and intelligently irrelevant. Darwinism rises or falls because of its scientific and philosophical argument, not its (relatively minor) historical acquaintances.

Despite that last point, the film is worth watching - so go out and see it.

The trailer is on YouTube.

Q&A Sermons?

Here's a new idea - the get up and go church. Highfields Church in Cardiff breaks up their morning gathering into small elements, so that people can come and go as they please. Church for men has some of the details including:

Worshippers can stay for as little as 45 minutes, or as long as 90 minutes. Allowing worshippers the freedom to dash out has helped Highfields attract a bumper crop men and young adults.

The service begins with 10 minutes of worship music. Pastor Peter Baker then takes the stage for announcements and about 30 minutes of teaching. He invites the congregation to write down any questions they may have on cards or slips of paper.

After 45 minutes has elapsed, Peter concludes his sermon and the offering basket is passed. Then it’s time for an intermission. Worshippers are free to go if they like, or they may stay for tea and soft drinks. Beverage carts are rolled to the front of the church and the saints enjoy refreshments and a few minutes of Christian community.

Once intermission is over, worshippers have three options: 1) leave 2) adjourn to one of several small group discussions in different areas of the church building, or 3) stay in the auditorium while Peter answers the questions that emerged from the sermon. Peter leads a lively Q-and-A session, sometimes throwing out tough questions with a flourish, or issuing a mock challenge, “All right, who’s the troublemaker who wrote this question?” If time permits, he takes additional queries from the floor.

I love the idea of Q&A. Church don't do this nearly enough. Q&A can be very stimulating and is far more engaging than a lecture. Church for Men says that men love asking provocative questions. I certainly do, but I didn't realize it's a common characteristic of men. In any case, with Q&A it seems like you can really get somewhere - the message is not just some impersonal information dump, but is tailored toward the real issues of people. Also, the give and take is more personal and more fun - real personality comes out when people are reading from a script.

I can understand why pastors don't do questions. They might think it upsets the authority structure - pastors are supposed to be the final word on everything, but tough questions might reveal others are smarter and better informed. And of course you can't predict what will happen, or what weird statement someone's going to make. It always seems the crazies come out when talking about theology and ministry.

But all of these fears are overrated against the real benefit of engagement, openness and outright fun that comes from live interaction. Sure pastors would need to study more and anticipate tough questions, but at least people would get real practical help in the issues that are on their minds. Currently, pastors have to make guesses about what's on their congregations minds, why not let them just ask.

The church I attend has Q&A following the message on Wednesday nights. And it's obvious that people like it. During the message, people get into a comfortable state of mind, hanging on just enough to keep their eyes open. But as soon as the questions starting everyone perks up and starts to listen. I know that's been my experience.

So here's my challenge. Have a Q&A and contrast the body language of people during the Q&A and during the message. Watch it change, then ask why churches don't do it more.

New Look, New Address

Spring is here and with it a new look and a new address. Please update your links (though the old address will continue to work as well).

Also, my photoblog has been redesigned and now lives at photography.timharwick.com. Strap in and feel the G's!

Preaching Must Go

Reading Pete's comment to my previous post and the comments from a similar post over at Jesus Creed got me thinking about several things.

1. There's a difference between ministry and preaching. Ministry is a totally different and much larger enterprise than preaching - ministry may happen during the sermon (but I'd be willing to wager less than most people think), but it's clear that lots of ministry happens without sermons. If that's true, then why is the sermon the main center of most Sunday morning gatherings?

2. Here's an idea: lets separate the Sunday morning speaker(s), from the Senior Pastor. Why must the senior pastor be the main speaker, head pastor and CEO of the church? Why not separate those roles? (I know financial realities make that difficult, but just for fun let's dream). Imagine if the senior pastor's primary responsibility were to just be head minister (overseeing all church ministry) and leave the Sunday morning speaking/facilitating duties to someone else. Large company's have spokespeople because they know that the CEO isn't necessary the best person to speak in behalf of the organization.

3. As Pete pointed out, the goal is transformation. If so, then a one-man show on Sunday morning just doesn't work. A 30-minute monologue goes in one ear and out the other - even if the good-hearted preacher says he preaches to communicate God's word, the fact is that any type of lecture will be at cross purposes with that goal.

So why not try a panel discussion on Sunday morning. It can't be any worst than what's happening now.

Doug Pagitt's Preaching Reimagined

Doug Pagitt has written a book on preaching called Preaching Re-Imagined, which has gotten lots of attention. Rick Holland criticizes the book in an article called “Progressional Dialogue & Preaching: Are They the Same?” Holland's article is interesting because it reflects a common reaction that some have about the emergent church's style of preaching.

Personally, I don't think Pagitt's idea of multiple voices is a good one, but at the same time Holland's criticism misses the mark because it doesn't rule out the use of progressional dialogue, nor does it rule out my own idea called Preaching 2.0. (The problem with letting just anybody speak is that there's too much shared ignorance - which is one reason most bible studies suck, I prefer to hear someone smarter than me, someone who will be interesting and stimulating.)

Pagitt believes preaching should no longer be a monologue delivered by an expert, but a conversation with multiple voices participating. He says the congregation needs to hear other stories as they live in Christ.

In response Holland claims that Pagitt's new definition of preaching is neither biblical nor historical. He claims the biblical understanding of preaching is proclamation, not letting the masses share whatever is on their mind. Moreover, the history of the church shows that the church was most influenced by preachers doing public hermeneutics.

But it strikes me that Holland's claims, while I think are true, need not rule out anything Pagitt wants to do. On Holland's understanding, biblical preaching is a speech event, but isn't Pagitt's idea also? Why can't sessions which includes multiple voices also include a speech event? What exactly makes those two things contradictory? As far as I can tell nothing in scripture or church history dictates that preaching must be done by a single individual for 30 minutes. Why can't it be done with several others?

In fact Pagitt can go further and turn the tables on Holland and issue a challenge: what should be done if preaching as monologue on Sunday morning no longer reaches anyone? Must preaching happen only on Sunday morning, or can Sunday mornings be used for some other style of communication? It seems to me that one can practice biblical and historical preaching while adopting other forms of communication.

Visual Movie Zen

Saw Sunshine a few weeks ago and it got me thinking about how some movies are so visually satisfying. So here's my list of the most visually appealing movies I've seen in the last few years. (If you have other suggestions, let me know).

These are not "realistic" movies, they're works of art. Who cares about whether what happens in these movies is possible, what matters is how it looks. In every case, the filmmakers sacrificed "reality" with beauty and I'm glad they did.

1. 300.


Frank Miller's graphic comic book comes to life. Yes, it's bloody, but the highly stylized film is groundbreaking. I remember thinking, I've never seen a movie like this before. I'd venture to guess that we'll see more movies like this in the future.

2. Hero.

I've never seen such vibrant colors in a movie. I love how the director often shot scenes using one main color - just wonderful to watch. As a photographer, I can alot from this film.

3. The Illusionist.

Shot in a sepia type style, the movie has the look of an old film. Especially nice are the flashback scenes when the film flickers a bit, making it appear like you're watch a hand-cracked movie. Minimal, yet arresting, it works wonderfully.

4. Sunshine


Sunshine is the most visually compelling sci-fi movie I've seen. I love the minimal look and the nice contrast between the cool blues inside the ship, and the hot reds and oranges outside. An original story told in an original way, the movie is extremely watchable. The New York Times hosts an interesting slideshow with the director which can be found here.

Mars Hill's Eye Popping Web site.

Really like Mars Hill's web site. Visually appealing , simple to navigate and a strong emphasis on video. It makes getting to know them much better. Churches haven't exactly been on the forefront of visual design , so it's nice to see some good examples.

It's clear church websites are getting better; the challenge now is getting more of the same inside the building. Most churches are designed for an oral culture - for example, having a pulpit is obviously meant for people to listen not see. Compare this with presentation master Steve Jobs.


Surely there are ways to including more visually oriented elements in our churches. We really need to begin to think about what people see when they come to church.

Middlebrow's Podcast offer an example of Preaching 2.0

Scriptorim Daily's Middbrow's Podcasts offer several round table dicussions that are terrific examples of the fun of Preaching 2.0. They feature a good moderator (John Mark Reynolds), bright guests and fun interaction. Nothing is scripted and it sounds like a party, all while great ideas are exchanged. Wouldn't be great if churches can find a way to make something like this happen?

You can have a listen at the Middlebrow podcast on education here.

Into the Sophomoric

Guess I'm not the only one who wonders why juvenile pursuits are applauded. Jeffrey M. Anderson points out the obvious problem with Into the Wild...

Penn, in his zeal for the character, very simply misses the obvious: this is a spoiled brat who has become disillusioned with his parents, as every young person eventually does. (He's angry because they're no longer perfect.) However, this kid takes his disenchantment to an inflexibly psychotic level at which he is willing to sacrifice himself as well as everyone else.

It seems the creative class can't distinguish between suicidal quests for escape with true responsible recreation. Something's wrong here.

Into the Wild

The story of Christopher McCandless is an interesting one. Profiled by Jon Krakauer in his book Into the Wild, McCandless' adventure has been brought to the big screen by Sean Penn. [The picture above is of Emile Hirsch who plays McCandless in the film.]

Outside magazine describes McCandless as...

the 22-year-old from Annandale, Virginia, who graduated from Atlanta's Emory University in 1990, donated the remaining $24,000 in his college fund to Oxfam America, cut ties to his parents, and took off on a quest to escape his privileged upbringing. For two years, he wandered North America alone as "Alexander Supertramp," abandoning his car in the Arizona desert and then riding trains and hitchhiking from California to South Dakota to Oregon to Utah to Washington to Baja and points in between. Then, in the spring of 1992, he walked into the Alaskan wilderness for his final adventure. Four months later, trapped by a swollen river that had cut him off from civilization, he starved to death in an abandoned Fairbanks city bus.

While the adventure has me interested, wandering into the barren wasteland of Alaska with no provisions just seems like a death wish. It seems like McCandless was more interested in running away than running toward something. I just don't find the idea of cutting all ties to civilization, and abandoning one's family, noble. Why must we leave our family and bank account behind to be considered a true adventurer? Perhaps he was just looking for a huge challenge and miscalculated the Alaskan wilderness. But even smart adventurer's make some safety provisions. (Compare this with Ewan McGregor, who learned survival skills and medical skills before motorcycling around the world. And McGregor didn't have to dump his family to do it.)

Think I'm wrong? You can find Krakauer's original article here and discussions about making of the film here.

Radio is fun again!

Just found Pandora, and it is slick. Music, the way I want it. Cool.

This will change things

Microsoft's Surfacing computer will change the way we interact with computers, making them even more pervasive. They will be more efficient, and definitely more fun. The day of Minority Report-ish computing is getting closer. This is even bigger then the invention of the mouse. See the video here.

Measuring Success

The Heritage Foundation has published a report on measuring success for faith-based organizations.

Outcome-based evaluation (OBE) is a tool for responding to this stewardship challenge. This form of evaluation permits faith-based organizations to define specifically what success means for their programs and then measure the degree to which they achieve those goals. This discipline not only documents effectiveness, but also helps the orga­nizations to refine the work they do and thereby begins a cycle of continuing improvement and greater success. A number of the best-run FBOs have started to apply this tool, speak highly of it, and, based on their experience in using it, are doing an even better job of serving the needy.

Isn't this great? How much more effective could faith-based groups be if they thought more about success in their efforts? I think churches shouldn't be afraid of asking questions like: Is the project worth the time and money? Could we be more effective in our methods. Faith-based organizations do great work, and this is the perfect tool for them.

The report is here.

Jeez, Thanks Blogger

Found out today that Blogger labeled two of my blogs, including this one spam and prevented access. Finally got it straightened out, but not after a mild panic attack thinking all my posts were gone. Whew!

Loving Monday: Business as a Calling

Integrating work and faith has not been a strong suit for many Christians or the Church. Mostly such conversations about integration involve how to invite your coworkers to church, or offering general suggestions on being a Christian at work. Few try to go beyond and offer real ways that business people can integrate their faith with their business or help people see work as a calling.

Christianity Today addresses the issue in an interview with John D. Beckett.

Do you think churches still don't understand business as a calling?

I do. Relatively few churches and pastors are reinforcing the legitimacy of a call into so-called "secular work." I have colleagues with tremendous business influence who are starving spiritually in their local churches. There's zero feeding; there's zero reinforcing of the call they have in the marketplace.

I see this all the time. Too often Christianity is presented only in the context of personal relationships between coworkers, not in the context of the type of work involved. What does Christianity look like for someone in the insurance industry? Or the entertainment business? What does Christianity have to do with sales and the retail industry?

Idea: What if, on a Sunday morning, we had a commissioning prayer for all business owners? (We could do the same thing for teachers in September.) We could talk about how important work is, and offer encouragement and prayer. Maybe even allow time for business people to network with each other.