MEMBER LOGIN




Search First Things

Advanced Search

RSS

Masthead

Recent Comments

Benny Hinn to Joel Osteen: You’re a Demon-Possessed Coward (32)
Truth Unites... and Divides: Comment #110 from...

The Top Ten Books That Have Influenced Mr. Benson’s View of the World (9)
Adam Omelianchuk: Ah! I realize now...

The Top Ten Books That Have Influenced Mr. Benson’s View of the World (9)
dac: After reading the comments, I...

The Top Ten Books That Have Influenced Mr. Benson’s View of the World (9)
dac: Christianity’s Dangerous Idea:...

The Top Ten Books That Have Influenced Mr. Benson’s View of the World (9)
Alison: Christopher, I have not read...

What Books Have Most Influenced You? (17)
Alison: Thanks for the response, Joe. Here are my books: 1. Marjorie...

Archives

Categories

Monthly



Jared Bridges

Website: http://www.jaredbridges.net/

About:

 RSS feed for this author

Posts:

Thursday, December 24, 2009, 7:50 AM

When pondering the nativity, I’ve heard much made of the fact that the manger is a place of great humility for the King of Kings to be found, and rightly so. I’ve seldom given much thought, however, to what the manger was — a feeding place for animals.

There’s little evidence that there were animals present at Christ’s birth. “The cattle were lowing,” as the song goes, but it it’s difficult to imagine a Jewish setting with high values on both cleanliness and hospitality that would permit a woman to give birth while having to worry about being stepped on by a donkey. The manger was indeed lowly, but this manger was not in use when Mary and Joseph sought a place to lay their child.

There is no stable mentioned in any of the gospel accounts — just the manger. The shepherds are not told to go to a stable, but a manger. They would not find the baby lying at his mother’s breast — the most logical place to find a newborn — but lying in a manger.

It’s a feeding trough. Its significance is veiled somewhat in that a manger holds the livestock’s food. The animals’ sustenance is replaced by a baby who really, after all and before all is their true sustenance.

Some three decades later that same baby would tell his followers, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” His further explanation of this cryptic principle would alienate many who couldn’t grasp what they saw as madness: a man calling upon them to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

In the end, the repurposed manger served its original purpose after all. Christ is our sustenance. Man does not live on bread alone, but from God’s words — from the Word made flesh. Let us feed upon him this Christmas.


Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 4:44 PM

This Thanksgiving, I’m thankful for blood. It’s one of the most powerful metaphors in any language, and it is the substance by which we measure our humanity.

Blood can mean death, of course. With loss of blood goes our life. Blood is the mark of violence, whether it is brought to bear through force or poisoned through more subtle forms of malice.

But blood also means life. The Scriptures tell us that “the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life” (Lev. 17:14, ESV). The death that comes with blood loss is chased away by new blood. Blood unites all the undulating parts and sinews of our bodies, making our disparate members whole.

Blood means family — those who live in different bodies but share with us the same blood. The association brought by blood can and will bring joy, pain, loyalty, betrayal, happiness, suffering, and love. Blood bonds us in ways which on this earth we will never fully comprehend, and can never fully escape even if we tried.

Ultimately, blood means grace. Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. Without death, there is no life. Christ displayed the full picture of the meaning of blood. The violence that shed his blood resulted in his death, but it is by his blood that we find life. It is by Christ’s blood that I can call others “brother” and “sister,” while our genetics have little in common.

So this year, as we gather together in the presence of blood that is familial, foreign, violent, and life-giving, let us thank him who covered us with his own.


Monday, November 16, 2009, 7:58 AM

Novelist Cormac McCarthy gives a fascinating interview to the Wall Street Journal in which he discusses, among other things, books, movies, God, cultural permanence, and ideas. At one point, the interview turns to the modern attention span, and how novelists must adapt:

WSJ: Does this issue of length apply to books, too? Is a 1,000-page book somehow too much?

CM: For modern readers, yeah. People apparently only read mystery stories of any length. With mysteries, the longer the better and people will read any damn thing. But the indulgent, 800-page books that were written a hundred years ago are just not going to be written anymore and people need to get used to that. If you think you’re going to write something like “The Brothers Karamazov” or “Moby-Dick,” go ahead. Nobody will read it. I don’t care how good it is, or how smart the readers are. Their intentions, their brains are different.

I think this is largely true — the only 800+ page non-thriller novels I’ve read tended to be old and Russian. The bite/byte-sized culture in which we operate today makes our attention spans struggle to hold beyond 140 characters, much less 140 pages (see Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google Making us Stupid“). Such indicators would not seem to bode well for Christians who claim to be a people of the book — a book which generally has over a thousand pages, thin paper and double-columns notwithstanding. Could there be any future for ideas that are bigger than a status update? (more…)


Saturday, November 7, 2009, 11:03 AM

The circus that is Haggard (Ted, not Merle) launched a new act this week — he’s starting a new church at his home in Colorado.  Just three years since the former megachurch pastor scandalized himself with a male prostitute, he is now ready to “to do something in [their] house to connect with friends.”   Beginning next week, the Haggards will host “prayer meetings,” which in Haggard’s mind could also be called “a church.”

The trajectory of Haggard’s life is disturbing on many levels (even before the scandal), but perhaps this statement he made to the Colorado Springs Gazette is most telling:

“For this prayer meeting, I have no goals,” Haggard said. “I have no secret hope that more people will come. I am not driven as I was. Before I focused on the Great Commission. Now I focus on helping other people.”

Setting aside the claim that he “has no goals,” or the seemingly self-deprecating hopelessness of his group’s prospects, it’s Haggard’s supposed antithesis of the Great Commission and “helping people” that’s most troubling.  How could an evangelical (former National Association of Evangelicals president, no less) see proclamation of the Gospel as being antithetical to “helping people?”

An evangelical who has lost the fact that the Gospel is our ultimate help should at the very least question his evangelical credentials. Better yet — perhaps he should seek to listen more than lead, and let the Gospel question him.


Friday, October 30, 2009, 4:43 PM

Yesterday, at a Heritage Foundation-sponsored event here in Washington, D.C., I had the opportunity to hear researcher Christian Smith present findings from his latest batch of research involving his National Study of Youth and Religion project.  Whereas the first round of research focused on the religious lives of American teens, Smith’s second round follows the same subjects several years later as they move into what he describes as “emerging adulthood,” the phenomenon in which a variety of factors prolong adolescence and delay the full responsibilities of adulthood — not to be confused with the “emerging church”.

The results of the research are both frightening and fascinating.  Among some of the findings on their views of religion and religious communities are that Emerging Adults (EAs):

  • are generally indifferent to religion
  • think that the shared central principles of religion are good, while religious particularities are peripheral
  • think that religion is for making good people
  • think that religious beliefs are cognitive assents rather than life drivers

One item which stood out was that EAs felt that religious congregations were “elementary schools of morals.”  Smith aptly noted that people tended to graduate from schools, and then move on (obviously Smith excludes the “perpetual grad student” from the purview of his study…).  These EAs tend to see religion in the same manner: something from which they can “move on.” The research also notes that EAs do not see themselves as “belonging” to their religious congregations

Given that his sample was from broad religious spectrum — and the fact that it’s obvious in the aggregate that persons who harbor the above sentiments are likely unregenerate — it’s still a sobering notion that many evangelical churches are full of EAs who think like this.  We should be ready for ministry to them.


Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 11:26 PM

Ratted out by the Huffington Post, no less. In her exposé there, Valerie Tarico — a self-described “former fundie” — shows politicians the ropes on “speaking evangelicalese.”  Tarico urges politicians to do things like:

1. Refer to “my heart”:
a. Evangelical examples: asking Jesus into your heart, God is speaking to your heart.
b. Secular use: I feel in my heart, I know in my heart no matter how hard it may be, we need to provide basic medical care for every child in this country.
2. Say you felt “called” or were led to do something.
a. Evangelical examples: God called me to move to Seattle, to take up the ministry, to put John 3:16 on my eyeblacks. Richard Dawkins and I have been brought together.
b. Secular use: I felt called to take up the cause of health care for all.
3. Use the word “personal” liberally.
a. Evangelical example: I needed a personal faith. You aren’t really a Christian until you have a personal relationship with Jesus.
b. Secular use: I have a personal relationship to the people in that nursing home.

Tarico does warn those seeking to woo evangelicals not to fake it, but still implies that certain key phrases can cause evangelicals to warm or cool to a politician.

What intrigues me about this is not that playbooks like this exist — I’ve been around politics long enough to know that there isn’t a target audience out there which hasn’t been neatly categorized, packaged, and labeled for presentation.  One could write a similar list for speaking to liberal environmentalists, sexual libertines, or blue collar union workers. What’s revealing here (and equally disheartening) is the depersonalized view of people that comes with such mass-culture thinking.

E pluribus unum rules the day. In this instance, evangelicals are viewed as little more than a voting bloc to be swayed — easier to deal with en masse than as individuals.  Sadly, such thinking infects the whole of the political spectrum, and it’s far from the approach Jesus took when he looked upon the crowds.  That we would all view others more as “sheep without a shepherd” than sheeple


Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 8:19 AM

Most internet users, surprisingly enough, don’t look to esoteric bloggers for answers. They turn to the Almighty Search Engine, which more often than not is Google (hey, we all can’t hang on to AltaVista, Lycos, Excite, and Webcrawler). Therefore, I thought our discussion of what is an evangelical wouldn’t be complete without letting Google chime in:

What Google thinks of evangelicals

As you can see, all the pixels we’ve spent here determining the nature of evangelicalism could have been easily solved by Google’s “Suggest” feature. Scary.


Sunday, October 18, 2009, 9:54 PM

In response to Joe’s opening volley regarding what is an evangelical, I would add this:

Ideally, evangelical is more an adjective than it is a name.  It’s not so much the evangelical church as it is evangelical churches.  In this respect, the content of this week’s sermon by my pastor is of greater concern than what national leaders are saying — a concept the national media often has difficulty grasping. As pervasive as national evangelical voices can be, the local ministry of the gospel (and the personal authority of the Scriptures is about as local as one can get…) has primacy over the universal.

This is not to say that evangelicals are or should be separatists, let alone wagon-circling fundamentalists (now there’s a tricky word!). Evangelicals indeed listen to and learn from each other from afar — this very blog is but one example of many. However, the gospel that evangelicals preach happens not in a vacuum, but is lived in the daily lives of believers young and old.  Paul reminds us: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” Feet serve us best when on the ground, and that’s where evangelicalism is found most pure.