I just finished Tom Long’s provocative Preaching from Memory to Hope, which I’d recommend to every minister. (I know, I know, why am I still reading books on preaching? I can’t help myself!) Much of the book is Long’s material from his 2006 Lyman Beecher lectures at Yale Divinity School.

In the first section of the book (chapters 1 and 2), Long recounts the reemergence of narrative preaching — especially through the provocative messages of people like Fred Craddock, Barbara Brown Taylor, and Frederick Buechner.

But recently, there have been attacks launched against narrative preaching: from the right, from the center, and from the left. Curiously, Long’s example of an attack from the right is from James Thompson of ACU. Though James does raise some potential problems in Preaching like Paul, it hardly represents “an evangelical perspective.”

Nevertheless, Long admits that the critics have a point: not all narrative preaching is gospeled:

“What has been for the last thirty years called narrative preaching has too often devolved into a hodgepodge of sentimental pseudoart, confused rhetorical strategies, and competing theological epistemologies. Preaches have larded sermons with silly stories of their pets and their children, told anecdotes from the playground to illustrate Golgotha, told hundreds of stories about certain kinds of people and shut out others, and crafted shifty trapdoor plots to keep the listeners amused. If the effect of the recent critiques is to burn away this kind of story stubble, then burn, baby, burn.”

The answer, however, is not gimmicks or the wholesale rejection of narration:

“Some megachurch preachers have seemingly noticed, or perhaps intuited, an increased presence of episodic listeners and have, in response, begun fashioning ‘antinarrative’ sermons . . . sermons that are built as a series of stand-alone ‘bullet points.’ (We have perhaps returned in a digital age to the old ‘three-points-and-a-poem’ style, except it’s now ‘eight bullet points and a video clip.’ As one critic quipped, ‘When all you have are bullet-points, your ammunition is pretty quickly spent.’) Hearers are invited to browse these sermons as they would a Web page, skipping here and there as interest would allow. Such preaching is immediately engaging to many people, but it tends to reinforce the fragmented, nonnarrated character of contemporary life, and it works, at a deep level, against the gospel.”

What is needed, he insists, is narrative preaching that is “theologically smarter and more ethically discerning in its practice.” Messages where God is the main character, where we’re not just dispensing little bits of advice about parenting, balancing the budget, or being nice. “The presence of God is not a commodity to be packaged in a sermon. It is an even to which we give testimony.” Long goes on to help imagine what such preaching might look like.

The second section of the book (chapters 3 and 4) is a frontal attack on the neognosticism that Long says is plaguing the church. What is the response of ministers to the growing number of people who have left the center of the Christian message for other versions that are both new and old? He insists, as he responds especially to Marcus Borg, that he’s not on a witch hunt. But he’s convinced that “gnosticism today leads people, as it always has, into a theological, spiritual, and ethical cul-de-sac.” I thought Long was very effective in rebutting the revisionist history of Christianity that has been popularized by Bart Ehrman and Dan Brown that pictures powerful church leaders sneaking away at church councils to pull a big one on the poor commoners of the church.

The last section — and these are “sections” as I discerned them not as they’re laid out in the book — is about preaching and eschatology. To me, this was the strongest piece. I loved the opening paragraph:

“The comedian George Carlin, in one of his marvelous standup routines, expressed astonishment over those opinion polls on television networks like CNN and Fox, where some debatable question is posed and people are invited to phone in and vote their views. ‘Did you ever notice,’ Carlin said, ‘there’s always, like, 18 percent who vote “I don’t know”? It costs a dollar to make those calls,’ Carlin said, ‘ and they’re voting “I don’t know.”‘ Carlin imagined some guy seeing the question of the day on the TV screen and saying to his wife, ‘Honey, give me that phone!’ He shouts ‘I don’t know!’ into the phone and then says proudly to his wife, ‘Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe you’re not sure about.’ Carlin went on to speculate that these same people probably call 1-900 numbers for $3.00 a minute to say, ‘I’m not in the mood.’”

So what does it mean to preaching eschatologically?

1) It means “to participate in the promise that the fullness of God’s shalom flows into the present, drawing it toward consummation.”

2) It means affirming “that life under the providence of God has a shape, and that this shape is end-stressed; what happens in the middle is finally defined by the end.”

3) It means “helping our people know that the eschatological and apocalyptic language of the Bible is not about predicting the future; it is primarily a way of seeing the present in the light of hope.”

Here’s what it says about their religious affiliation:

“Fewer young adults belong to any particular faith than older people do today. They also are less likely to be affiliated than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations were when they were young. Fully one-in-four members of the Millennial generation — so called because they were born after 1980 and began to come of age around the year 2000 — are unaffiliated with any particular faith. Indeed, Millennials are significantly more unaffiliated than Generation Xers were at a comparable point in their life cycle (20 percent in the late 1990s) and twice as unaffiliated as Baby Boomers were as young adults (13 percent in the late 1970s).”

Ah, they’re less religious — right? No! The report goes on to explain that they are still people of faith. But they have unplugged from religious groups.

While we can all name some churches with lots of people in their twenties attending, this report hits us with the stark truth: this generation is leaving “church” (and other religious groups) in unprecedented numbers. They are dropping out at 5-6 times the historic rate.

Why? And what can we do now that we know that?

Those are the questions I’m spending my time asking now.

I loved your books! I have found my thoughts drifting to some of the subjects over the past few days, especially altruism and apathy. I was curious if any of the experiments took into account the subjects’ religious beliefs. I don’t know how one would logistically test that but it would be interesting to see how those claiming to follow a religious doctrine teaching altruism would do in the tests.

We are not the only ones. We have found a few other fakers out there. I would love it if you ever explored this subject in a future book. I should mention that the friend who recommended Freakonomics to me is the head of the bible study at her church. Interesting.

You can read the telling comments that follow the letter here.

This says a lot, doesn’t it? We’re called to be salt and light. We’re called to follow Jesus — who was a friend to “tax collectors and sinners.” And yet testimony after testimony follows in the comments of those who have to fake Christianity in order to accepted.

I’m knee deep in Ken Gormley’s new book, The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr.

Why? Well, certainly Ken Starr’s new appointment as president of Baylor University makes it relevant in this part of Texas. But it’s much more than that. The overlap with my own life is huge: the Church of Christ . . . Arkansas . . . Harding College.

Kenneth Starr’s father was a Church of Christ minister in Texas. His first two years of college were at Harding — a decade before I was a student there.

Here are the passages about Harding:

“. . . [President Clinton] knew that Starr had grown up in the ‘hard-scrabbled’ part of North Texas, where the religious right had first planted its seeds, and then attended Harding College in central ARkansas for two years. Everyone from Arkansas, Clinton said, lifting his eyebrows, knew what ‘Harding’ stood for at that time: ‘Well, it was an ultraconservative Church of Christ school that in the fifties had a president who was a leading, militant anti-Communist. And was rather well known in those super anti-Communist circles around America.’ The Church of Christ believed in ‘the saving grace of baptism’ and was ’steeped in the New Testament teachings of Jesus.’”

[Correction: We were steeped in the New Testament teachings of Paul -- many of our churches considering the words of Jesus less important.]

“Harding was initially a good fit for Starr, incorporating many of the building blocks that came to define his adult life. His freshman yearbook included a prominent picture of Harding’s president pointing to a pyramid that had written at its foundation, FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF IN GOD. Above that was situated a block that represented THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, and atop that a smaller block, THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE: OUR FREEDOM, with an American flag flying at the pinnacle.”

During the seven years I preached at the College Church in Searcy, Gov. Clinton had close connections with Harding. (He became governor at the age of 32 in 1978, the year I graduated. He lost reelection in 1980, but won again in 1982 and kept the position until 1992. We moved to Abilene in 1991.) I remember one time when he spoke on campus. Jim Bill McInteer also spoke, and his humor cracked up the governor so much he pulled out a pen and paper to take notes. Diane remembers another time when Mrs. Clinton came to a small event for Associated Women For Harding — especially the moments they had alone visiting when Hillary encouraged her as a mother of a mentally-handicapped daughter and gave her a crash course on opportunities for special needs kids in Arkansas.

Kenneth Starr returned to the world of the Church of Christ for the past six years as dean of the Pepperdine Law School and as a member of the Malibu Church of Christ. (I think he and his wife technically “kept their membership” — whatever that means! — in their previous church in Virginia, but they attended the Malibu C of C when in town.)

Gormley is doing a great job of balancing his account of both men. Was Kenneth Starr “Satan” (as Susan McDougal suggested), or just an honest, at-times over-zealous prosecutor? (Those who’ve worked with Mr. Starr at Pepperdine wouldn’t even recognize the man described by the harsher critics — compared to the generous, competent man they’ve known the past six years.) And Bill Clinton? Well you can imagine that the opinions are all over the page!

Very interesting read, though. So much that happened came during our dark years of grief. The events that were in the headlines of the nightly news just floated in the background as we tried to survive.

An interesting note is Starr’s statement that if he ran into President Clinton at an out-of-the-way barbecue join, where they could speak without microphones preserving everything, he would say, “I’m sorry that it all happened” — “not in the form of an apology, but really as a reflection.”

May the God of all comfort begin his long work of healing for David, for Malaya, for Rick and Beverly, for Josh and Jonathan, and the whole family.

First, once again I’m struck by Paul’s brilliance. Even when scolding them for putting too much stock in rhetorical excellence, he does so in a way that is rhetorically brilliant! But I’m especially captured by Paul’s ability to see the deep, subterranean issues. Ostensibly the issues were incest, taking others to court, food offered to idols, spiritual gifts, etc. But beneath that Paul could see a deeper issue: division based on social status, a skewed understanding of wisdom, and spiritual inclinations. But even further beneath that he could see the deepest issue: a failure on the apart of the Christ-followers in Corinth to understand the implications of “Jesus Christ and him crucified.”

Which leads to the second thing that struck me: the stunning relevance of this message for today. For we still prefer triumphal theology; we still struggle with hyperspirituality. We want God to be our genii; we offer assurances that our prayers will be answered the way we think they should be; we insist on our best life now.

Their primary understanding of spirituality was glory now; Paul’s was suffering now and glory ahead. His deepest theological conviction, in other words, was cruciform. A word of the cross: foolishness to some, a scandal to others, but to those of us who are being saved the power and wisdom of God. Because we follow a faithful, crucified Messiah, we should expect suffering and humility now with glory ahead.

Does that mean prayers are never answered? No. But it does mean that our faith does not tenuously await a certain answer. We live in the mystery of it all, knowing that God is good no matter what happens. For we follow a crucified one.

A dear friend of mine who’s been praying for a family member was recently told by a woman that she had a word of the Lord for him: he just needed to claim what he was praying about. . . . Welcome to the Corinthian heresy. Just name it and claim it. Just like Jesus.

Oh, wait. That isn’t just like Jesus. He prayed for the cup of sorrow to be removed, but as a Faithful Son he bore the suffering and shame on our behalf. From him we learn a way to suffer and a way to live in humility with others . . . while anxiously looking for the resurrection and glory ahead!

The Corinthian form of spirituality always winds up dividing. It is full of knowledge (which “puffs up”), but short on cruciform love (which “builds up” – 1 Cor. 8:1). In contrast, the self-giving love of Jesus “is not self-seeking” (13:5).

“For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power” (2:2-5).

The short version of that “gospel” is this: God is wrath-filled because of our sin yet we are helpless to do anything about it because we can’t keep the Law/law perfectly. But Jesus died as a penal substitute for us, and when we put our faith in Jesus (Arminianism: because of our choice; Calvinism: because of God’s preordained choice), his righteousness is imputed to us.

Those who follow current studies in Paul have met serious responses to this reduction through the works of Richard Hays, N. T. Wright, Ben Witherington, Scot McKnight, Douglas Harink, etc. (See, most recently, Wright’s insightful Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision.) But in this new tome, Campbell has thoroughly exposed the weaknesses of “justification theory” — its textual weaknesses, as well as its intrinsic and systematic difficulties.

Here’s a taste of what Campbell was hoping to accomplish:

“It is very important to appreciate that this analysis is consequently not an attack on the gospel but an attack on a version of the gospel, and one that I maintain Paul himself would view as false. It is therefore a thoroughly evangelical discussion in both method and purpose. Moreover, the solution that I am aiming toward is deeply Protestant if not Lutheran. To put things at their simplest, only if my rereading is true is it possible to affirm coherently Paul’s slogan that ‘God justifies the ungodly,’ since he means by this that God delivers the wicked from their enslavement to Sin, when they cannot deliver themselves, and thereby demonstrates his unconditional grace and love. . . . [Paul's] description of deliverance and cleansing ‘in Christ,’ through the work of the Spirit, at the behest of the Father, the entire process being symbolized by baptism, is the good news. It requires no supplementation by other systems.”

Here’s what Michael Gorman, author of some of my favorite recent works on Paul, has written about Deliverance:

“I blurbed Douglas’s book and was possibly the most positive of the five who did so:

This means, more bluntly, that in my estimation Douglas is both profoundly right (’his overall thesis is persuasive’) and simultaneously off the mark (’One may disagree with parts of the analysis, or take a somewhat different route to the same destination’). Fortunately, he is terribly right where it really matters: in his perceptive characterization of the liberative and participatory character of justification in Paul. Unfortunately, the relatively narrow topic of this panel’s review—the book’s treatment of Romans 1-3—is where Douglas is, I think, off the mark.”

I loved what McKnight wrote about it: “It would be a fantastic vacation read or summer read for pastors; it is a must for professors and I believe should be read by seminary students as a primary text on Paul — whether one agrees with it or not.” If I were not a reader of McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog, I’d think that he needs to better understand what vacation reading is!

While I am still rethinking his proposal about Romans 1-3 (and am not convinced), this is a valuable and welcome contribution to a discussion that sits right at the center of the church’s mission. And I’m quite convinced that Campbell’s suggestion that “justification theory” is a computer virus that, “having infiltrated a system, overwrites some of its key commands with a foreign code from another programmer and then goes on to execute a series of embarrassing and even destructive actions, often losing original material in the process.”

If the book could help steer us away from having our thoughts dominated primarily by God as Judge and by retributive justice, that would be a nice start.

More coming as I continue to blog about justification, “faith of Christ,” and the book of Galatians.

Congratulations to Phil Schubert on being named ACU’s 11th president. Here’s the note on the ACU website:

A Message from the ACU Board of Trustees to the ACU Community:

We are pleased to announce that Dr. Phil Schubert has been chosen to serve as Abilene Christian University’s next president.

The Board of Trustees’ decision is the culmination of a prayerful process and a diligent, thoughtful national search which led to the consideration of a wealth of excellent prospects. In the end, we found our new leader right here on our campus.

Dr. Schubert is an individual in whom the university and this board have tremendous confidence. The fact that someone of Dr. Schubert’s caliber will now lead this 104-year-old institution bodes well for ACU’s future. We are excited about the energy and enthusiasm he brings to his new role.

Prior to appointing Dr. Schubert, the Board listened closely to the ACU community. We solicited your input early and often. You told us plainly that ACU’s next president should be an honest, trustworthy, Christ-centered leader; a person of integrity, approachable and personable, driven by a compelling sense of mission. We believe that both of our finalists embody these characteristics. We have concluded, however, that Dr. Schubert is best suited to help ACU manage the opportunities and challenges of the coming years.

Dr. Schubert prepares to take the reins from Dr. Royce Money who, during his 19 years of service, has successfully led our university through numerous challenges to new levels of service and accomplishment. Going forward, we are confident Dr. Schubert will hold fast to ACU’s 21st Century Vision and continue to take the university to new heights. He believes that, while these are challenging times, ACU remains poised to become the premier university for the education of Christ-centered global leaders.

We ask you to join us in extending our sincerest appreciation to co-finalist Dr. Rick Lytle. He has served ACU with distinction for 19 years, and continues to do so as the Dean of the College of Business Administration and as he leads our students this semester in ACU’s Study Abroad program at Oxford. His ardent love and passionate support of the university’s mission is clear to all who know him. Dr. Lytle says, “My support and prayers are with Phil and his family as they assume leadership of this great university. May each of us continue to work hard, stay on mission, and give thanks for the blessings resulting from our associations with Abilene Christian University.”

Dr. Schubert will formally begin his responsibilities as the 11th president of Abilene Christian University on June 1, 2010. Thank you for your prayerful support of the search process that has brought us to this milestone, and please continue to seek God’s blessings for our university, our students and for our next president.

Sincerely,

Sharron Drury and Jim Porter
Members of the ACU Board of Trustees
Co-chairs of the Presidential Transition Team

This was a wonderful moment in chapel:

“This is the essence of faith — dying to an old existence characterized by disobedience to God through complete identification with the obedience of Jesus. Paul both defines this complete identification with Jesus’ death (co-crucifixion) as faith and states that it occurs in the public expression of that faith known as baptism (Rom 6:1-11). Moreover — and this is crucially important — the act of co-crucifixion is not a matter of human effort; it is a graced response.”

“Reconciliation with God, then, is by God’s own initiative, or faithfulness, expressed in the faithfulness of Jesus, to which we respond by sharing in that faithful death in the act of saying ‘yes’ to God and expressing that ‘yes’ in baptism.”

“The person who says ‘yes’ to the gospel and is justified by co-crucifixion with Christ in the experience of faith and baptism makes a spiritual and sociological move from being outside Christ and the covenant people of God to being inside Christ and God’s people. Using what is sometimes called ‘transfer language,’ Paul can speak of ‘believing into Christ’ (the literal meaning of a key phrase in Gal 2:16) or being baptized into Christ (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27). More vividly, he calls this being clothed with Christ (Gal 3:27), an experience that must be renewed day by day (Rom 13:14). Christ envelops the individual and the community that lives in him, beginning a long-term process of shaping both believers and churches into his image (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18), a process also of having the mind of Christ within (Phil 2:5).”

Read about it here.

- – - -

We had a great board meeting for the Kibo Group this past weekend in Ft. Worth. The group was started by the fifteen of us who climbed Kilimanjaro together in 1998, and it focuses on ministries to help East Africa. Eleven of the fifteen were able to make it, plus two more were Skyped in from Searcy, and one other from Rwanda.

When you get a chance, I’d love for you to check out some of the programs that Kibo supports like: Malo Ga Kujilana, the Mvule Project, the Water Source, and the Basoga Women’s Leadership.