I do not entirely understand why people hang on to death so much.  The reality is: death is inevitable.  Adam sinned therefore, all sinned and therefore, all die (Rom. 5:12).  My mind instantly bends to the theological and biblical reality of death.  Death helps us to remember that our days are but a vapor as the great preacher has said, "Vapor of vapors...all is vapor" (Eccl. 1:1).  This is one quick wisp of a life and the death of a loved one, Christian or not, does not cause me to shudder but to pray for continued faith, strengthened evangelistic efforts, success in strenuous study, a warm heart, and joy in God.  All is a vapor, one moment it is here, the next moment it passes, so when someone near and dear dies I do not believe that it is cold, unfeeling, and pessimistic to be reconciled to the reality of their death and what it means and to mourn little.

In fact, I think that this foppish, ridiculous, and bouncy view of life as a neat little trek through candyland is short-sighted.  I'm not sure if you've checked recently but this isn't candyland.  No wonder people respond so strangely to death when they have a warped view of how life should be spent and what life is.  Think again of Qoheleth when he says, "It is better to go to the house of mourning than the house of feasting, for this is the end of all mankind, and the living wil lay it to heart...the heart of the wise is in the house of mourning but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth" (Eccl. 7:2, 4).  That's right, Qoheleth says that if you are interested in finding wisdom you'll go do some meditating in the morgue while contemplating what is the end of all mankind and, in specific, what is the end of you.  Qoheleth says that instead of going and "celebrating life" at a party you should go spend some time in a graveyard.  Is this a sadistic, macabre morbidity or is it a reconciliation with reality?  Are we reconciled to the reality of death or are we attempting to pretend that it just won't happen?

I have experienced the death of people who are dear to me.  It is not that I have no idea what it feels like to lose someone beloved and important.  I know what that feels like.  However, their death isn't a cause for incessant selfish doting on my hurt feelings but is a call to repentance, to faith, prayer, and evangelism.  It is a call to deeper joy in God.  It is a daily reminder that this life is not a joke, it is serious, and eternal life and death hang in the balance.

If you are wondering, "Why me?  Why that person?  Why so young?  Why the infant?  Why the grandfather?  Why my mother?" let me tell you Qoheleth's answer: Their end is your end too.  As Jesus said, it isn't that you've done something horrible, it's that you are horrible and "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Mark 13:1-5). 

You are going to die.  Are you prepared for it?  Have you spent any time dwelling on that fact?  Have you spent any time reconciling to the reality of death?  I encourage you to do so.  Qoheleth, the wisest living man before Christ, did exactly that.

Contemplating With You Beloved Friends,

R. D. Thompson

After listening to Driscoll I stopped off at Starbucks on Hampden and Holly Place and read some of 1st Kings.  I find Kings and Chronicles becoming my favorite books of the Bible because they have more humor, irony, sarcasm, and bitterness than any other book.  They are some of the best literature that explains to us the course of God's people in the Old Testament.

I always find Adonijah's attempt at the throne in 1 Kings 1 somewhat humorous because it is so sketchy.  Here is a guy who has never actually been told, "You are going to be king/not going to be king," by David and knows that if he is going to get power he'll need to sneak in there real quiet like.  Adonijah takes a second rate priest, a bunch of bulky bodyguards, David's somewhat failed friend Joab, and a few of his buddies down to En-Rogel and sacrifices and tries to have his own coronation party (without telling anyone).  The problem, of course, is that none of David's approved men are with Adonijah (like Nathan the prophet, Benaiah the bodyguard, or Zadok the priest, or Solomon...you know, that guy who David told Bathsheba would be the next king?).  The other problem is that having your coronation at En-Rogel instead of the Gihon spring is like the Queen of England being coronated in the conference room of a Motel 6 down the street from Westminster Abbey instead of actually in Westminster Abbey.

I think it is fairly humorous too that when Adonijah and his second-rate group of cronies get their party crashed they split like street racers when a cop shows up.  If you've ever seen The Fast and The Furious you know exactly what I'm talking about.  I've been at street races and it is almost exactly like it's portrayed in that movie.  Everyone tenderly hangs around watching a race nervously aware of every side street and on the watch for anything that might be a cop.  When the cop inevitably shows up someone yells, "Cop, Cop, Cop!" and everyone flies to their car to spread out on every side street they can find.  Adonijah and Co. knew that they shouldn't be there doing what they were doing and they split like crazy when they found out.  Why?  Ancient Near Eastern practice was to kill any and all rivals and their friends upon coronation.

The thing I always find stunning about this story is Solomon's immediate qualification for the job.  He proves that he is the right guy within a couple of verses of his coronation.  Before this account we know virtually nothing about Solomon and yet, when he is properly coronated as king, he doesn't immediately turn around and kill Adonijah and his friends even though Adonijah would certainly have killed Solomon, Bathsheba, Nathan, Benaiah, and Zadok if his coup hadn't failed.  After Adonijah runs to the temple and grabs the horns of the altar and yells, "Base!  I'm on the base!  You can't tag me!" Solomon instantly promises that he won't kill Adonijah if he proves himself to be a just man and stay away from any attempt at a coup.  Now that is mercy in Ancient Near Eastern culture.  Adonijah knew that he was in trouble, knew that he was doing something wrong, and so did Solomon, yet Solomon doesn't punish him and sends him off on his merry way as long as he promises not to make trouble.  Solomon is clearly God's man from the start!

Adonijah got just a wee presumptuous and somehow didn't get the punishment he justly deserved...yet...he dies eventually for being an insubordinate rebel.  Shoulda stayed on the straight and narrow Adonijah.

R. D. Thompson

My good friend Michael Spotts has been traveling and keeping a travel blog over at Pedadidact.com.  I like to travel loads.  Since I'm no longer single I could never even dream of undertaking Spottsies tri-state northwestern bike trip or his coast-to-coast-to-coast bus, train, and boat trek.  However, I can travel in the little world surrounding me and by borrowing the lovely idea of meandering from another friend (good aquaintance really) Abraham Piper and carrying a camera and my thoughts around I can get my own healthy dose of contemplative travel.

The idea at left is totally lifted from Abraham.

I thought I would take a wander up Colorado Blvd today and look for a weekly planner because I have lost quite a bit of organization in my life by not having one.  I went to Office Max just down the street and found nothing.  So I thought I'd just walk to Office Depot at Colorado and I-25.  They didn't have what I wanted either so I decided to walk all the way to Barnes and Noble up Colorado.  They didn't have what I wanted either so I grabbed some coffee, browsed books, and then came home the same way I went.  I ended up just getting a cheap planner at Office Depot :-)

8 miles in all.  I haven't walked like that in years.  Thanks Abraham and Mike for the inspiration!

This exercise has lent me yet further insight into the fact that we need to dump some of the media out of our lives and spend some more time contemplating.  Walking was a very contemplative exercise.  I hope to do it again very soon!

We spend far too much time doing wasteful nothings on computers and watching entirely too much television.  Kill your television and turn off your computer.  Go read a book.  Go for a walk.

R. D. Thompson

Douglas Groothuis says,

[T]elevision relentlessly displays a pseudoworld of discontinuity and fragmentation. Its images are not only intrinsically inferior to spoken and written discourse in communicating matters of meaning and substance, but the images appear and disappear and reappear without a proper rational context. An attempt at a sobering news story about slavery in the Sudan is followed by a lively advertisement for Disneyland, followed by an appeal to purchase pantyhose that will make any woman irresistible and so on, ad nauseum. This is what Postman aptly calls the 'peek-a-boo world'- a visual environment lacking coherence, consisting of ever-shifting, artificially linked images. In order to detect a logical contradiction, 'statements and events [must] be perceived as interrelated aspects of a continuous and coherent context.' When the context is one of no context, when fragmentation rules, the very idea of contradiction vanishes. Without any historical or logical context, the very notion of intellectual or moral coherence becomes unsustainable on television.

See the whole essay here.  I'd have to say, I couldn't agree more.  Kill your television.  Today.

Introduction
Church can be confusing.  An unbeliever making some simple observations of various denominational practices could possibly give up on Christianity because no single church appears to have the same stable practice.  Personally, I have many times been tempted to completely give up on church because of the absolutized claim of each denomination to be doing church “biblically” while at the same time demonstrating massive variations in form and practice from the church across the street claiming the same biblical basis.  The questions arise naturally: how should church be done?  What is the point of church?  What does the Bible say about church?  Why even bother?  I will here seek to begin to address the answers to those questions from the perspectives of Jonathan Wilson in Why Church Matters: Worship, Ministry, and Mission in Practice and Andy Stanley and Ed Young in Can We Do That? 24 Innovative Practices That Will Change the Way You Do Church.

Andy Stanley and Ed Young’s Can We Do That?: An Overview
This book is broken into four sections, each of which focuses on some aspect of church practice which either Andy Stanley’s church or Ed Young’s church seems to have innovated on and perfected for their particular audience.  The first section, “Reaching Out,” sets the tone for the entire book.  Both authors make it clear that their primary goal in church is to get unbelievers in the front door so that they can hear, “the intensely practical nature of the Scripture.” [1]  While this is not necessarily a problem the methods used for getting people in the door are suspect.  Stanley uses a method focused on getting the people of his church to invest in the lives of unbelievers and then invite them to church without necessarily presenting the gospel to them because, supposedly, “it is easier to invite people to an event than it is to confront them about their personal belief system.”[2]  Ed Young appears to focus primarily on making his church flashy, easy, accessible, and everything that a well-run consumer driven corporation could possibly hope to be.[3]  Young’s focus appears to be marketing to a white suburban middle-class and on centering his church around American unbelievers.  Says Young, “The important thing is that your ministry is designed with the unchurched person in mind.  We target the unchurched at Fellowship because that’s what Christ did.”[4]  One is forced to wonder, especially after reading Young’s take on marketing,[5] whether or not either he or Stanley are aware of the content-rich, didactic, un-entertainment oriented nature of Jesus’ ministry amongst the unbelieving.  The one gleaming chapter in this section is on the issue of membership.  Says Young, “[T]he Bible teaches that growing, maturing Christ-followers will be connected and committed to a local congregation.”[6]  These are suitable and timely words for an age of church hoppers.

The second section of the book entitled “Ministering to People” is not nearly so aggravating as the first with some genuinely helpful suggestions for youth ministries and inner-church activities.  Despite the fact that Andy Stanley’s “Kidstuf” suggestions for children’s ministries are marred by statements like, “we took our cue from organizations like Nickelodean and Disney,” and, “we strive to keep the style and message of the [children’s ministries] production nonthreatening,”[7] the idea of a fun, creative, and varying experience for children is stimulating.  Though very little of what Stanley and Young present on the topics of greeters and high-school ministry is in any way “innovative” and some of it seems downright idiotic[8] their call to get the people of their church into smaller cell groups seems especially important.  Says Stanley, “Small group life, we’re convinced, is the key to our mission of leading people into a growing relationship with Jesus Christ.”[9]  It is with frustration at a total lack of community compassion in the past churches in which I have been involved that I say I cannot agree more.

The third and fourth sections of the book deal far more with the clockwork of the church and answer questions about leadership models, hiring and firing, how to run a staff meeting, and what to put on your preaching calendar.  Most noticeable in these chapters is Young’s stunning view on the leadership of the church.  Stating that, “the people in the church who are gifted to lead are the ones in leadership positions,”[10] Young presents a staff run church that holds almost dictatorial power and which is intentionally not run by a committee, an elder board, or the congregation.  Sounding stunningly papal he says, “I don’t know who originated the idea that the church, like our society, should be a democracy.  The church should be designed as a theocracy: a God run organization in which he uses gifted leaders to carry out his vision.”[11]  One should like to look Young straight in the eye on this issue and tell him to go read what the Bible says about church leadership.  I can offer a suggestion right now: it isn't dictatorial staff controlled rule.

The final thing that I shall notice concerning this book is Ed Young’s clarifications about what the pastorate is primarily about.  For all of his ridiculous marketing strategies, distracting programs, foolish church leadership opinions, and confused sense of church purpose, his statement that pastors must, “[C]ontinually reaffirm [their] primary calling as a preacher of God’s word and give it priority,” is quite possibly the most sensible statement in the book and sits in the only really, wholatively sensible chapter in the book.[12] 

I would recommend this book as a whole to no one other than offering it as an example of what not to do in church.

Part II to come soon!

R. D. Thompson

------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes and Bibliography

[1] Andy Stanley and Ed Young, Can We Do That? 24 Innovative Practices That Will Change the Way You Do Church, (New York: Howard Books, 2002), 3-4.  Unfortunately, the intensely theological and intellectual nature of Scripture is either downplayed or completely ignored by both authors.
[2] Ibid., 3.
[3] Ibid., 10-11; 30-31.
[4] Ibid., 14.
[5] He actually made a flashy billboard advertising his church that said, “Fellowship Church: Inner-tainment for the Heart.” See Ibid., 28.  How one could call this innovative or anything other than a corporate Hollywood copy-cat is beyond me.  Church never has been and never should be about being entertained.
[6] Ibid., 36.
[7] Ibid., 50.  These statements are idiotic and patronizing to children.  Children are far smarter than Stanley treats them and, in my experience teaching children, are more adept at understanding the huge threatening concepts of sin, wrath, sovereignty, and redemption than are adults.  Children don’t need more Nickelodeon and Disney at church.  Children need doctrine taught with simplicity and gravitas.
[8] Like intentionally putting unbelievers in your greeters ministry.  See Ibid., 77. 
[9] Ibid., 82.
[10] Ibid., 103.  This says absolutely nothing of value pertaining to the quality of the life lived by the leader.
[11] Ibid., 108.
[12] Ibid., 136.

------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading

Review by Greg Gilbert of 9Marks.org

People who know me will probably laugh when they see the above statement but the fact is: it's true.  I strongly dislike controversy.  It reeks of arrogance and posturing.  Even the best of arguments makes my gut ache.  Yet, I always jump in feet first.  I'm always the first to defend the doctrine of the sovereignty of God or proper polity in the Church.  I am always the one who goes for the throat when idiotic books like "Velvet Elvis" or "The Shack" become popular.  So, many people interpret my passion for the truth to mean that I must love controversy and enjoy being divisive.  Let me tell you my heart: I hate controversy.  I would much rather just agree with my brothers and sisters in Christ and be done.  Many people will say then, "You should only argue about the major things.  Avoid controversy unless you are dealing with the core doctrines of Christianity."  I have to be truthful here: I really don't think that holds water in any way shape or form.  It is a weak statement.  In my reading recently I ran across this,

For the sake of unity and peace...Paul labors to set the churches straight on numerous issues--including quite a few that do not in themselves involve heresy.  He does not exclude controversy from his pastoral writing.  And he does not limit his engagement in controversy to first order doctrines, where heresy threatens.  He is like a parent to his churches.  Parents do not correct and discipline their children only for felonies.  Good parents long for their children to grow up into all the kindness and courtesy of mature adulthood.  And since the fabric of truth is seamless, Paul knows that letting minor strands continue to unravel can eventually rend the whole garment.

Faithful Christians do not love controversy; they love peace.  They love their brothers and sisters who disagree with them.  They long for a common mind for the cause of Christ.  But for this very reason they are bound by their conscience and by the word of God to try to persuade the Church concerning the fullness of the truth and beauty of God's word.  We live in a day of politicized discourse that puts no premium on clear assertions.  Some use language to conceal where they stand rather than to make clear where they stand.  One reason this happens is that clear and open statements usually result in more criticism than ambiguous statements do.  Vagueness will win more approval in a hostile atmosphere than forthrightness will.  But we want nothing to do with that attitude.  Jesus refused to converse with religious leaders who crafted their answers so as to conceal what they thought (Mark 11:33).  Our aim (if not our achievement) is always to be like Paul when he said, "But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways.  We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God" (2 Cor. 4:2).  [1]

I hate controversy.  However, I love the truth of God's word and if, even for a moment, I feel that the glory of the sovereign God is being demeaned in any way or that God's word is being mis-represented I will leap to defend.  Occasionally, this may be hasty and poorly undertaken but I do not apologize for defending what I believe is true.

Do you defend what you believe is true?  I hope so.

Standing in the truth of the gospel with you friends,

R. D. Thompson

------------------

[1]  John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007), 32.

In an effort to remain connected to the larger world without having to obssess over Facebook I have taken the liberty of keeping my Twitter (username: rdaythompson) and have started a Formspring account where you can ask any questions about this blog or what I write.  Feel free to ask whatever you want of course, but keep in mind that the tyranny of the glib will not shine through on my Formspring.  I will be as thorough as I can be in answering questions about my blog or theology to the best of my ability.

Keep in mind also that I will not answer hostile questions.  Frame questions you have carefully and irenically.  I have no interest in engaging in internet warfare.

Loving God!  Fearing God!

R. D. Thompson

Here's my beef: no matter where I am, what I am doing, or how I am doing it, there is a device demanding my attention.  As I sat on the beach with my good friend Michael Spotts and took some breaths without worrying about the internet, the telephone, the car or my next appointment I realized that I hadn't actually stopped to breathe and regain my composure without a device nearby or an imminent task in at least 8 months.

How can we live with this?  How can we even stay in a close relationship with Christ when we have nothing but incessant movement, a list of things to do, a linked up computer and a telephone in our pocket?  I have no doubt in my mind of the usefulness of these things in staying connected to the greater world but I have no clue how to keep a tension with them.  How ought we to relate to technology?  How ought we to relate to the brain-frying pace of life in civilized society?

Though I am not entirely certain that there is one overarching and universal answer, and remain mostly clueless and frustrated in my search for a proper tension, I think it wise to err on the side of the monks.

I don't suggest a lifestyle of slothful laziness (to which some monkery degraded), nor do I suggest a lifestyle of total asceticism and disconnection from society (though it sounds undeniably attractive in the current situation).  However, I do suggest a lifestyle devoid, or at least trimmed, of the incessant.  I think that we as Protestants (if you are Protestant and reading this) would be wise to healthfully consider the words and rule of St. Benedict, "Idleness is the enemy of the soul.  Therefore, the brothers should be occupied according to schedule in either manual labor or holy reading."1  Yes, they had a schedule.  Yes, they had things to do.  Yes, they even had some form of the technology of the day.  But their schedule, their list, and their technology had one main aim: God.  Nothing got in the way of the pursuit of God as misguided as it may or may not have been.  They had hours and hours to pray and read and worship and work.  Where are the hours in our schedule to pray and read and worship?  We have a whole lot of work and busyness in our schedules, we have a whole lot of idleness in our schedules, but for some reason we see prayer and worship and study as things which have to be spontaneous and cannot be scheduled.  How did the monks do it?  Benedict suggested that his monks should work for around six to eight hours (taking breaks to pray), read for two or three (taking breaks to pray), eat for one or two (while someone read a Christian book in the background), pray for one or two, engage in daily corporate worship for one or two, and then sleep for whatever was left over.  This was all to be conducted in virtual silence and was once considered the most godly form of living.  It was a legitimate and sane lifestyle that included a vow of poverty and the abandonment of ownership of property.  It was a highly balanced lifestyle that abhorred the incessant and valued that which mattters most: God, the Bible, and community.

While I don't think we need to return to the old Monasticism (God forbid!) or that we need to create a new monsaticism (a la some misguided Emergents), I do suggest that we stop wasting our time on mere trifles and order our existence with the understanding that everything we do here is temporary and that what we put into our souls and our minds is going to dictate how we live our daily lives.

If we go on living in the incessant we will continue to experience burnout and emptiness.  If we do not at least evaluate our relationship to technology and culture we will continue to experience incredible spiritual frustration.  If I personally don't make room in this non-stop manner of life for silence and solitude and if I don't work to eliminate both furious activity and shiftless idleness, will it be 8 more months until I find time to rest my mind and focus silently on the work of Christ in prayer and solitude?  For the love of God, I hope not.

Pray.  Read.  Contemplate.  Fear God.  We need to do it a lot more than we currently are.

Loving the Almighty YHWH with you friends,

R. D. Thompson

- - - - - - - - - - -

1 St. Benedict, The Rule of St. Benedict, trans. Anthony C. Meisel and M. L. del Mastro (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 86.