Abba Father

Over the past year, one of the things that has changed about my spirituality is that I feel I have moved from a pursuit of perfection, arrival, and answers; I have moved into a place of facing my own brokenness and darkness....The interesting thing is that it has almost nothing to do with my actions; at least, as far as I can see.....I used to evaluate my spiritual success on the basis of what I have done or not done: did I look at porn? Did I snap at someone? Did I honor God w/ my finances? etc, ect. But the brokeness of which I speak is different.....it sometimes feels like a chasm in my soul....an unexplained void.....i sometimes just feel like weeping....sometimes I do.....and it all feels God related....the psalmist's cry comes to mind, "Where can I go to meet with God?"....this Pilgram has definitely regressed....it seems as though the more I have drifted away from outward, religious expressions and formalities (and the more I have drifted from institutionalized Christianity), the more I have turned inward......and the more inward I have turned, the more I have discovered emptiness and vacuums.....i used to have no time for this kind of thing; i could evaluate my soul based on more objective criteria: what did i do? what did i not do? did i have a "pure heart"? did i have "impure motivations"?....but the whole religious thing kind of went supernova for me and the resulting gravitational collapse formed a black hole.....I'm no scientist, but as I understand it, light exists in a black hole it's just that its trapped within the darkness.

Special thanks to the Owl for sending me a copy of Peter Rollins's book, How (Not) to Speak of God. I recommend it; it's a very thoughtful exploration of how faith might look like if things like struggle, exploration, silence, the importance of doubt, and God's transcendence and unknowability are privileged. The official description is, "explore the philosophical and theological underpinnings of the emerging church." The prose can be a bit dense if you are not used to reading philosophy and theology, but it is not an academic book, so it is definitely doable. It's not a long read, but a bit provocative in spots.

We will discuss Rollins again, but for now there is a quote that ties in with some of my general feelings and spiritual experiences over the past year or so. Rollins talks about the "God-shaped hole," but not in the sense of a hole that is filled by God. Instead, "the God-shaped hole can be understood as precisely that which is left in the aftermath of God."

"The believer, far from once having a God-shaped hole in his or her being that is now filled, is one who has a God-shaped hole formed in the aftermath of God, a hole that compels them to seek after that which they already have. The Christian religion arises as a space that testifies to God by testifying to a God who created, but who cannot be contained, within the space. The void left by God is not unlike a type of black hole, full of something that cannot be seen and which draws our gaze into the unseen.....Faith, in this rendering, can thus be described as a wound that heals." (p. 52)

Rollins goes on to quote Pascal: "Finally, let them recognize that there are two kinds of people one can call reasonable; those who serve God with all their heart because they know Him, and those who seek Him with all their heart because they do not know Him." (p. 53)

I just came across Romans 8:15-16 as translated by the NRS,

For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, "Abba! Father!" it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God

Most translations end the sentence after "Abba! Father!" and then a begin a new sentence with "It is that very Spirit..." So, the NIV for example: For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

Why might that be significant? Well, if the NRS translation is correct, then it is in the act of crying "Abba! Father!" that we have the most intimate assurance that God's Spirit is with us. In other words, we are most assured of the presence of God through pain, doubt, and confusing.

Regardless of whether the NRS is correct, these verses certainly refer us to Jesus in the Garden, struggling with the ramifications of the cross that he was going to bear.

Rollins also makes a connection with the cross:

"Doubt provides the context out of which real decision occurs and real love is tested....It is precisely in the midst of a Holy Saturday [the 24 hours between the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ] experience that the decision to follow Christ becomes truly authentic. A faith that can only exist in the light of victory and certainty is one which really affirms the self while pretending to affirm Christ, for it only follows Jesus in the belief that Jesus has conquered death. Yet a faith that can look at the horror of the cross and still say 'yes' is one that says 'no' to the self in saying 'yes' to Christ....The believer ought to acknowledge and even celebrate this dark night of the soul, understanding that this is not a threatening darkness which conceals an enemy but rather is the intimate darkness within which we embrace faith." (p. 34-35)

Click here to become a Christian

I was on myspace tonight and ran across an advertisement for Jesus and salvation. (As an aside, I heard today on the news that myspace was not meeting revenue expectations and so they have been ramping up ads and being more aggressive...like plastering a huge bat across the screen to advertise the new Batman movie.)

Here's what the ad walks you through:

1. God Loves You!

The Bible says, "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life"

The problem is that . . .
2. All of us have done, said or thought things that are wrong. This is called sin, and our sins have separated us from God.

The Bible says “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” God is perfect and holy, and our sins separate us from God forever. The Bible says “The wages of sin is death.”

The good news is that, about 2,000 years ago,
3. God sent His only Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins.

Jesus is the Son of God. He lived a sinless life and then died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins. “God demonstrates His own love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.”

Jesus rose from the dead and now He lives in heaven with God His Father. He offers us the gift of eternal life -- of living forever with Him in heaven if we accept Him as our Lord and Savior. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by Me."

God reaches out in love to you and wants you to be His child. "As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe on His name." You can choose to ask Jesus Christ to forgive your sins and come in to your life as your Lord and Savior.
4. If you want to accept Christ as Savior and turn from your sins, you can ask Him to be your Savior and Lord by praying a prayer like this:

"Lord Jesus, I believe you are the Son of God. Thank you for dying on the cross for my sins. Please forgive my sins and give me the gift of eternal life. I ask you in to my life and heart to be my Lord and Savior. I want to serve you always."

Did you pray this prayer?

[end of ad]

You now have the opportunity to click "Yes," which leads you to a Congratulations page with an opportunity to sign up for more info. on how to grow as a Christian. Or you can click "I have questions," which again allows you to submit your personal info. and ask your questions.

I'm a bit divided on this one.

A part of me is offended by the fact that we are essentially selling salvation and making Christianity available at the click of a button. (I'm sure Billy Sunday is smiling down on us.) Does signing up for Christianity really result in life transformation? Do we really need more Christian converts? Maybe we just need to focus on transforming the ones we've got into a living and loving body of Christ.

On the other hand I think to myself, "Don't be such a spiritual elitist, judgmental prick, Jon. Maybe this will transform someone's life. So, who are you to judge?"

Love and Adultery and Ethical Scenarios

Eve had known about Adam's affairs for years now. He was an important man, and she perhaps should have known better than to expect fidelity. But when you are young, you are usually naive. Initially, she had confronted him, threatened to leave, etc. But eventually she just kind of accepted the fact. Her little boy, Paul, was the love of her life. He had such energy and passion for life; like his father, perhaps. So Eve stayed. Yes, she loved Adam; and she loved Paul. It was difficult, but all things considered, she counted herself lucky to experience the love of her son, and their bond was exceptionally strong and unusually intimate, even for a mother and son.

When Eve began her affair with Doctor Robert, she never questioned the ethics of the situation. Adam and Eve had an unspoken agreement.

Robert and Eve cared about each other. His affection was sincere, and he understood Eve's desire to hold together her family. It was painful for him, but he understood. Robert and Eve just got each other; it clicked. Eventually, though, the heavy feeling of watching Eve leave him became too much for Robert. He had to move on; he had too leave.

The Master's Treasure

The stuff you own ends up owning you, says Tyler from Fight Club. Jesus' message was similar: where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. The point of both is that we are not the master of our things, but the slave. We do not invest in the things our heart treasures; rather, the heart follows the treasure. We become what we buy; we are what we eat.

My take on the general mood of American Christianity (my very humble opinion) is that one can have stuff as long as one has a good perspective. So, for example, we can justify buying that bigger house if we say, "This is the Lord's house!" It's all a matter of perspective: if we have the correct mind set, then we can buy more stuff and increase our standard of living. Hence, the boat is not my boat, it is God's boat that I am going to use for ministry and for God's glory.

But is this perspective legitimate? Is it possible to merely be an "owner" of stuff, or is it more correct to understand that the more we have, the more we are controlled and shaped by our things? For example, as a house size gets bigger, does the person who "owns" it get smaller? Does ownership of more things steal away bits and pieces of our souls? And does this happens regardless of whether it is "God's house" or "God's ministry boat"? I suggest that the idea that "It's not my house, but God's!" is merely a fantasy. It is true that it is not your house, but neither is it God's house. The house belongs to itself and to the complex cultural and societal matrix in which it is embedded.

To the extent that we accumulate more stuff, buy the boats, and take out a bigger mortgage for a bigger house, we participate in the cultural/societal matrix; this means we give away our control and our souls to the culture/society. I don't know that this is necessarily "wrong" (I'm not here to make a value judgment), but I do think that we are kidding ourselves if we think we can sanctify our stuff as "belonging to God." Each purchase we make costs us more than the money we give; we literally pay with our lives and give ourselves over to the control of our possessions. Again, I'm not saying that this is wrong; I'm merely presenting this as a discussion point.

So.....on that note, it is interesting to spot a new trend amongst American consumers. In a land of unparalleled affluence (which is, perhaps, unprecedented in all of human history) people are cutting back.

Here are a few selections (emphasis added) from an article in Time, How to Live with just 100 Things. I find it interesting to note the psychology (and perhaps spirituality) that goes into "ownership" of things:

Excess consumption is practically an American religion. But as anyone with a filled-to-the-gills closet knows, the things we accumulate can become oppressive. With all this stuff piling up and never quite getting put away, we're no longer huddled masses yearning to breathe free; we're huddled masses yearning to free up space on a countertop. Which is why people are so intrigued by the 100 Thing Challenge, a grass-roots movement in which otherwise seemingly normal folks are pledging to whittle down their possessions to a mere 100 items.

But what about Christmas ornaments? Family heirlooms? Those skinny jeans you hope to--but will probably never--wear again? "It's a very emotional process," says professional organizer Julie Morgenstern. Her new book, When Organizing Isn't Enough: SHED Your Stuff, Change Your Life, lays out a plan for clearing out both physical and sentimental clutter. "Often these are things that represent who you once were," she says. "But once their purpose is over, they just keep you stagnant." SHED, by the way, is an acronym for "separate the treasures, heave the trash, embrace your identity from within and drive yourself forward." Which is a handy little guide to Dumpstering your way into a state of Zen.

"It comes down to the products vs. the promise," says organizational consultant Peter Walsh, who characterizes himself as part contractor, part therapist. "It's not necessarily about the new pots and pans but the idea of the cozy family meals that they will provide. People are finding that their homes are full of stuff, but their lives are littered with unfulfilled promises."

Walsh isn't surprised that decluttering is so popular these days. Between worrying about gas prices and the faltering economy, people's first reaction, he says, "is often, 'I need to get some control over my life, even if it is just a tidy kitchen counter.'"

Law-Freedom-Spirit-Flesh: A Preliminary Summary

The thing that has primarily occupied my thoughts for the last several months has been a theology of freedom, law, Spirit, and flesh. Forgive me for including so much biographical information. If you would like, you can simply skip down to the end and get to the theological/biblical portion of this post; but for me, my theology and my walk of faith have come together in a way that makes it difficult to separate the two; theology has been both theoretical and biographical.

Within the last year, several events and conversations have kind of converged on me to make me rethink the essence of my theology of sanctification and my own personal spiritual walk. I was raised by parents whose profession was always ministry in conservative communities of faith, and I have always taken my faith very seriously, even from a very young age. And yet, it is no exaggeration for me to say that I have subjected the entirety of my thinking on Christianity, spirituality, and faith to a complete rethinking.

Law and Religion
A major factor that has spurred me on to rethink my approach to faith is my own experiences within a community of faith. I believe that many of the people that I have rubbed shoulders with in the church have been sincere and good people, but for me, remaining in the institutionalized church became unbearable. It was something that I think gradually built up within me over the course of a few years, and it culminated in me stepping away from the religious scene last fall.

Personally, I felt like I had gradually grown very complacent, even though I was doing everything "right," at least by the standards of my church: going to church every Sunday, helping to lead a ministry in the church, active in the life of the church, taking classes in seminary, and generally having a desire to make a difference in the world and advance the kingdom of God.

So, why the complacency in my life? Well, a complete answer to that question may not be possible in this life, but my complacency and general state of spiritual depression was one of the motivations for me to rethink many of my presumptions about the Christian life and my theology of sanctification.

This brings me to my next point: rethinking theology.

Galatians 5: Paul's Theology of Freedom
Paul's theology in Galatians 5 is foreshadowed in various ways in what he writes prior to specifically addressing a theology of freedom. Paul is dealing with a church that is moving (or has moved) itself back under law. One of the primary ways in which they have done this is through an emphasis on the importance of circumcision. Paul seems baffled that they would prefer a lifestyle of law, especially after tasting freedom: "After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" (3:3)

I think it is important to note that in chapter two, Paul says that he has died, and Christ now lives in him. So, the issue of freedom, then, cannot be reduced to a I'm-in-it-for-me approach to life that puts one's self at the center. What freedom is not is a self-absorbed and self-centered lifestyle that takes no account for one's actions.

In 5:1 Paul makes the profound announcement that Christ has set us free for freedom. Law brings us under bondage and slavery (chap. 4), but Christ set us free for freedom. The contrast is important: Law and Freedom are set against one another; they are opposed to one another. The direction of the believer's life should be away from law/bondage/slavery and into freedom.

I find it interesting that Paul is both redundant as well as redundant: we have been set free for freedom. This repetition seems to me to make the point that being set free means that one must then cultivate a life of freedom. If a slave is set free, he may be free in principal but having a free mindset is another thing. Conversely, a slave might be free in their mind/perspective but a slave in the reality. The Galatians declared themselves free and then lived in slavery to law.

Moving along in chapter five, Paul clearly states that living by the Spirit results in not "gratifying" the desires of the flesh (5:16). There is a certain conflict involved between the Spirit and the flesh; this struggle is so great that there is a sense in which we have no control (v. 17). Being out of control does not eliminate choice or responsibility, because there is still an exhortation to "live by the Spirit" (v. 16), but Paul does highlight the fact that the spiritual life is not a matter of formulaic repetition or even good intentions. There is something chaotic and unpredictable that lies beneath, and it appears as though this chaos must be worked out in each individual life. (And, I would also add, this working out is best within the context of a community of freedom and openness where free individuals can challenge each other and point out blind spots.)

In verse 18, Paul drops the bomb: If you are led by the Spirit you are not under law.

Paul is urging his readers not to use the measuring stick of law. After all, if one is led by the Spirit, why re-introduce a new standard? The life of being led by the Spirit is contrasted with a life lived by the law. This is a bomb of nuclear proportions because it undermines the work of the religious institutions. Religious institutions invariably work to establish and maintain the importance and primacy of law: sexual norms, societal/cultural laws, spiritual laws, moral laws, and laws/norms of all kinds. Institutions are formed around core values, and these values (almost without exception) uphold law. Paul here suggests that being led by the Spirit takes the believer beyond law.

So, in summary, I see Paul comparing and contrasting these four ideas as follows: The life of the Spirit is one of freedom that moves away from a life of living under the law according to the flesh. Spirit is tied to freedom, and law is tied to flesh. These seem to be two very distinct ways of living life; two economies or states of mind. It is by the Spirit that the believer moves into true freedom, which necessarily moves the believer out of a life and a mindset dominated by a struggle between the law and the flesh.

Psychology of Law
My good friend John Doyle (aka Ktismatics) has a very intriguing post in which he ties together Paul's theology with the psychological/philosophical musings of Jacques Lacan. John notes the Lacanian perspective that, "When there is no lack — when everything demanded is surrendered — desire is stymied. Nothing is left to be desired. Desire springs from lack…Satisfaction buries desire." [Freedom from Desire] John then ties this to Romans chapter 7 and finds a remarkable parallel between the two viewpoints. Paul says in Romans 7, "I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COVET.' But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment,
produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead."

Where is the parallel between Pauline theology and Lacanian psychology? In this: prohibiting something creates a lack of that thing, and this lack generates desire. Says John,

The Greek word translated as “covet” here is the same word that’s translated as “desire” in Galatians 5. I would not have known about desiring if the Law had not said, “you shall not desire.” This I think is precisely what Lacan has in mind. When there is no gap between demand and surrender, when nothing prohibits fulfillment, then there is no desire. Desire is created by the Law, by the prohibition it inserts between you and what you want.

So, on this Pauline-Lacanian theory, law will necessarily stimulate desire; the two are connected, and the struggle between them will always exist. For Paul, though, the life of the believer is to go beyond this law-desire death trap; Paul wants us to leave law and desire behind and usher in freedom through a walk with the Spirit.

John sums up this Paul-Lacan reflection by saying, "The Law-bound person can never do what he wants, not just because what he wants is prohibited, but because his wants are themselves distorted by the prohibitions attached to them by the Law. Under the Law want is inextricably bound to the desire to sin. There is no freedom in this kind of desire. But the Spirit releases want from prohibition, fulfillment from violation. Only in the Spirit are you free to 'do the things that you please.'”

Contemporary Religious Life
I see Paul presenting the believer with a real choice: either Spirit/freedom or law/flesh. If this interpretation is correct, then the implications are radical, because historically (and from my experiences), most Protestant visions of the Christian life retain the law as central to the life of the believer: they want the Spirit to fulfill the law, they do not want to go above and beyond law. But if the above interpretation of Paul is correct, then Paul is suggesting that one cannot have it both ways: either live by the Spirit in freedom, or forever allow one's self to be enmeshed in the struggle between the flesh and the law.

Most Protestants preach freedom, but retain law. To me, this is a confused approach. it is like a slave who is set free from his master, but still remains a slave in his mind and never has the perspective of a free man. Paul seems to suggest that we are free and not only should we be free in theory but free in fact. It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.

Is there a law-desire struggle that is part of the structure of our world? If there is, then it would appear as though those of us who uphold the highest moral standards would be perhaps undermining the very morals we seek to protect. Perhaps the higher one's standard of law, the greater one's desire increases. There is clearly a culture war in the United States that has been going on from the inception of our nation. There are many who see themselves as defenders of truth and morality, and they form communities of faith to hold themselves to the rigorous standards of law. Despite what good intentions they may have, is it possible that relying so heavily on law actually puts individuals in a no-win situation?

For me, questions remain: Is it at all possible to avoid law? And what does it mean to "walk with the Spirit" and live in freedom? But despite these remaining queries, I think Paul is presenting us with a radical freedom and an intriguing reflection of our humanness. These are my preliminary thoughts.

Contextualized and Relativized Ethics

Kierkegaard said, "Truth becomes untruth in this or that person's mouth." (I'll have to grab the citation information later.)

I like this move by Kierkegaard, even though it runs contrary to many conservative Christian thinkers. For me, however, the point of talking about the importance of relativity and contextualization in ethics is not to provide an opportunity to turn untruth into truth, but to open up the possibility that human beings often turn truth into untruth. In other words, relativizing "good/evil" and "truth/untruth" is about understanding how important context is to the discussion. Could it be that much of our inclination is toward self deception? That as human beings we find security in "truth," when such truth has merely been taken into a context where it can be used for "untruth"?

Ah, perhaps an interesting example from current events:

McClellan has some kind words for Bush, calling him "a man of personal charm, wit and enormous political skill." He writes that the president "did not consciously set out to engage in these destructive practices. But like others before him, he chose to play the Washington game the way he found it, rather than changing the culture as he vowed to do at the outset of his campaign for the presidency." [from Ex-press aide writes Bush misled U.S. on Iraq, citing Scott McClellan]

Shaken not stirred

This from Hebrews 12:

You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; 19to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, 20because they could not bear what was commanded: "If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned." 21The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, "I am trembling with fear."

22But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

25See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? 26At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, "Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens." 27The words "once more" indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.

28Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, 29for our "God is a consuming fire." [NIV, emphasis added]

I find this passage profound, because the writer places fear of God in a new context. First, he explains old way: God storms at the people from the mountain. In the old covenant, when God was near he was also very distant. The people trembled when God came near. He spoke from the storm and with fury.

This old way is in contrast to the new covenant: angelic glory, joyful assembly, redemption through Christ's blood. The comparison yields the conclusion: there is something better in the new way.

But the new way of joy and redemption begs the question of what place the fear of God may have. For the writer, the answer seems obvious: in light of what you are receiving, worship appropriately, namely, with reverence and awe. He then suggests the consistency between the old and new way: our God is a consuming fire.

The book of Hebrews is fascinating, because the author is reworking the entire Old Testament into a new framework. Sometimes the old fits well in the new; at other times the old needs to be radically recontextualized. In Hebrews 12, the constant is the God of a consuming fire; but the context is new. It is a unique Christological context. So, even the God of consuming fire is recontextualized.

Personally, I deeply appreciate the grace and joy of the Christian life; it is something I am only beginning to realize, I think. I try to start over with each new day: today I am a new Christian who is just now experiencing God's grace for the first time.

Yet as much as I love walking in God's grace, I also appreciate the moments when I can tremble in God's presence. Both God's grace and his consuming fire relate to his presence and nearness. God remains mysteriously non-disposable. In other words, there is no formula to conjur up his presence. He just appears. Or disappears. I don't mean to suggest that we should not seek him, but only that God is often like Lewis's Aslan in that he so often refuses to be compartmentalized or used. He resists the economics of market exchange where we can pay a price for a product that we consume for our own use. Nay, in fact, if there is an economics at work, then the reverse seems to be the case: it is God who is the consumer, the consuming fire. In many ways, it is we who are at his disposal.

The Cola Turka Side of Life

Advertising is clearly one of the primary ways not only to sell a product, but as a means of selling a lifestyle and transforming culture. There is no longer a distinction: product is image and image is product.

Advertising just is culture and culture is advertising.

In 1971 Coke produced the "I'd like to teach the world to sing" commercial. As I understand, it is the most successful (or one of the most successful) ad campaigns ever. Though I am no expert on the history of marketing, this ad was a pioneer in abandoning the concept of blatantly selling the product and instead sold an idea: a better world; a world united in song. Oh, but a world also united in drinking Coke. (Ah, so they did not completely abandon the sale of the their product!)



In 2003 Cola Turka aired two very popular commercials with Chevy Chase. Certain elements in Turkey felt threatened by the invasion of American culture and products. Cola Turka seized the opportunity to sell its own cola and outwit the giant foreign mega-brands, Pepsi and Coke. The message of the ad? Cola Turka is not just another American-type cola. Whereas the other brands represented an import of American culture and threaten to Americanize the Turks, Turka Cola promises to Turkize the Americans! So, they used a famous American spokesman to pitch the idea.

Check out these two, highly successful Turkish ads for Cola Turka:





Either way one looks at it, the above ads represent the homogenized global culture now sponsored by ___________. I'm not here to make a value judgment, I think that there are opportunities and challenges. One positive potential outcome is that we can be united around being human beings and not by race, ethnic, or national distinctions. Of course, losing our distinctiveness also seems troubling.

In any case, go ahead and pop open a Cola Turka and celebrate diversity.

The Five Mistakes Clinton Made

The following are from an interesting little article The Five Mistakes Clinton Made by Karen Tumulty

1. She misjudged the mood
That was probably her biggest blunder. In a cycle that has been all about change, Clinton chose an incumbent's strategy, running on experience, preparedness, inevitability — and the power of the strongest brand name in Democratic politics.

2. She didn't master the rules
Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game.

3. She underestimated the caucus states
While Clinton based her strategy on the big contests, she seemed to virtually overlook states like Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas, which choose their delegates through caucuses. She had a reason: the Clintons decided, says an adviser, that "caucus states were not really their thing."

4. She relied on old money
For a decade or more, the Clintons set the standard for political fund-raising in the Democratic Party, and nearly all Bill's old donors had re-upped for Hillary's bid. Obama relied instead on a different model: the 800,000-plus people who had signed up on his website and could continue sending money his way $5, $10 and $50 at a time. (The campaign has raised more than $100 million online, better than half its total.)

5. She never counted on a long haul
Clinton's strategy had been premised on delivering a knockout blow early. If she could win Iowa, she believed, the race would be over.

Now, of course, the question seems not whether Clinton will exit the race but when. She continues to load her schedule with campaign stops, even as calls for her to concede grow louder. But the voice she is listening to now is the one inside her head, explains a longtime aide. Clinton's calculation is as much about history as it is about politics. As the first woman to have come this far, Clinton has told those close to her, she wants people who invested their hopes in her to see that she has given it her best. And then? As she said in Indianapolis, "No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." When the task at hand is healing divisions in the Democratic Party, the loser can have as much influence as the winner.

Indiana Primary Day

Today Indiana goes to the polls, and our votes actually mean something. Wow.



I am Jon Erdman, and I approve this message.

And Now In Local News

Normally Indiana is ignored in the primaries. Well, friend, truth be told, most of the time Indiana is ignored in just about everything! But this year Indiana actually has some influence in the upcoming Democratic primaries. (We vote tomorrow.)

As a result, Bill Clinton was in Warsaw, Indiana. Yes, that's right, Warsaw, Indiana.

Warsaw is right next door to my little lake side hamlet of Winona Lake. So, I went to see Bill speak on Saturday.

It was a good time. His message was conservative, no big surprise there. I was a bit worried at the outset of the speech because Bill seemed like he was zoning out! In fact, his mouth was kind of hanging open and he was leaning forward such that some high school guys behind me started laughing and joking that he was going to fall over.

Ah, but once Clinton started speaking, he got in the zone. The man is a very influential politician. He was very passionate and on point, glancing only infrequently at his notes. I was very impressed.

There was a young woman with him on stage, which of course caused the high school guys behind me to start cracking jokes. Being of a depraved mind, I joined in the course jesting and suggested that I had seen a young woman who had carried in a sign saying, "I want to be the next Monica." Yes, friend, I am wrong.

The President began his speech by saying, "This country is in trouble. And you know it." His tone was emphatic; he reminded me of sitting around a dinner table listening to my grandfather lecture. A few times during the speech, Clinton took a stern tone, warning the crowd that the United States had drifted off point from the utopia he created in the nineties. What is interesting is that Clinton never spoke of Barack. I don't recall him mentioning any other politicians by name, with the exception of mentioning a few local Democrat politicians. Only a few times did he mention "the other candidates."


Former Pres Bill Clinton Works Tough Crowd in Warsaw
(Hhhhmmmmm....I don't recall the crowd as being "tough," despite the fact that Warsaw is a staunchly Republican town. In fact, I recall quite a bit of applause and enthusiasm from the crowd. All in all, I would say that Bill had a very warm reception and good turn out.)
Bill Clinton visits Plymouth and Warsaw

Here is a hilarious Youtube clip of something of a typical Indiana local who couldn't get their camera to work in time!


In other local news...

Unfortunately for me, I missed the chance to hear Obama. He was in Ft. Wayne and then made a surprise stop yesterday in Elkhart, Indiana. Ft. Wayne is about 45 mins away and Elkhart is only 20 minutes or so. Darn. I would have liked to see Obama.

Accountability 2.0

For the last month or so, I've been thinking about accountability and law. From my experience, most Christian accountability groups/relationships are centered on some sort of legalism: have you not done the bad stuff. Some accountability relationships develop very specific questions that are asked at each meeting: Did you have impure thoughts, did you look at pornography, did you read your Bible everyday, did you pray everyday, etc.

The point of most accountability relationships is to keep one accountable for whether or not they have kept the rules. If someone screws up, then the result is shame. If one lies and says, for example, that they did not look at pornography when if fact they did, then presumably more shame follows, because now you are not only a pornographic sinner but also a liar. Trust me: been there, done that.

So, law and shame are interconnected in a traditional accountability relationship. This is not to say that there cannot be some positive accountability, however. One may use law/shame as the opportunity to encourage each other to "pursue God," to cultivate a more virtuous thought life, or to develop life-patterns that avoid coming into contact with particularly tempting temptations. But even the more positive "encouragement" winds up being a legalistic thing: if you fail to move in a positive direction, then you have violated the law.

Regardless of the good intentions of those involved, I find the law/shame approach to be largely ineffective. That is, it just hasn't worked well for me or those I have known. I would suggest that it has worked in some ways and in some situations; but by and large I find that most people struggle mostly with the same things over the long run.

Two quick reasons for the ineffectiveness: First, psychologically it seems as though when we focus on law (the "dos" and "don'ts") it usually produces all the more desire: desire to do the don'ts and to don't do the dos. Most human beings find it innate within them to want to break the law. Whether or not we actually break the law (and to what extent we are lawbreakers) seems to vary from person to person. Also, even if we don't like to think of ourselves as "lawbreakers," we still find the law a poor motivator. For example, reading one's Bible because of obligation somehow drains us and tends to make Bible reading even less desirable than it would be. Making a task (however positive and enjoyable it may be in and of itself) an obligation takes it into a new context that tends to make it tiresome.

The second reason is from Paul's theology. Paul seems to suggest in Galatians 5 that law and desire are linked such that law feeds off of desire and desire feeds off of law. For Paul, there is a law-desire economy at work that produces failure upon failure and ultimately "death." (Also compare Romans 7.) So, I see a good theological reason why law-shame and most accountability relationships are not very effective.

John (aka Ktismatics) comments on the psychological-theological connection:
Sinful desires are created by the law; the law is created because of sinful desires. It's a dialectic that needs to be abolished altogether in order to see synthesis on a different plane, which is the life of the; spirit and the fruit thereof. (personal correspondence)

I think Paul is saying that, within the slave morality of the Law, moral and immoral acts are equally unnatural and non-spontaneous. The Law simultaneously stimulates the desire to self-justify and the desire to transgress. The resulting sense of conflict and futility makes everything an effort. It’s the life of a slave.

But, says Paul, this futility isn’t necessary. Christ set the Galatians free; they’re no longer slaves but heirs. In Dostoevsky’s famous novel Ivan Karamazov concludes that if God is dead then everything is permitted, that all things are lawful. Curiously, Paul contends that just the opposite is true: if the Spirit sets you free then all things are lawful (I Corinthians 10:23). Has the Spirit put God to death? No, but the Spirit did put to death the slave morality of law-desire-transgression that had come to be identified with God. (Everything is Permitted)

In my previous post on sin, I shared the illustration of thinking of Pink Elephants: if you try not to think of pink elephants, it just becomes all that much harder not to think about them. Hoosier commented on this:

I had lunch with one of my "accountability bros" several weeks ago at which time I told him I no longer was striving to be holy because any sin felt like utter defeat. He was shocked. I told him I planned to enjoy the grace already extended to me. Last week we had lunch again and he told me how down he was because of some struggles. I told him he was thinking too much about not doing it and that pulled him in.
Side note: when you hear pornography mentioned in a sermon, what's the first thing you think about? Exactly, pink elephants.

So, here is the question: Is there a law-less way to cultivate accountability groups?

Perhaps the manner in which we meet is important. Perhaps super secret, private meetings are counterproductive, because it cultivates that sense of shame and the need to hide one's true self (the secret self) from the rest of humankind. What if accountability were moved into the context of small groups/cell groups/house churches? What if Christians had a sense of trust, grace, and maturity such that anything could be shared?

In the fellowship of freedom that I envision, this is possible. The reason is that we are here to set each other free, not to weigh each other down with rules and laws. The point of the life of the believer is not to fulfill the law; it is to live by the Spirit in freedom and grace.

When there is a focus on meeting the laws and rules, we tend to feel weighed down and unmotivated. We also feel shame and failure. But why do we have to live this way. If Christ has set us free, we are free indeed? It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. (Fellowship and the Freedom of Self)

There is still a place for a confessional element in a fellowship of freedom. But this purpose of confession has little to do with law. Confession is important and should happen often. Confession helps us verbalize who we are: "I failed with pornography," "I overate and indulged my appetites in an unhealthy way," "I had meaningless sex with a co-worker," "I am having inappropriate thoughts about touching children." All of these "dark" confessions bring to light the direction of our lives, which helps us come to grips with who we are and where we are going. Do I want to define myself as someone who is driven by desires for pornography? Ultimately, it is a drive of the "flesh," as Paul calls it. But the fellowship of freedom is the best context to understand who we are and why we continue to go back to the flesh rather than embrace a life of freedom in the Spirit.

What does accountability look life if we redo the whole thing, top to bottom??? Thoughts or suggestions? I'm interested in feedback on this topic. How can believers make the most of their fellowship and truly grow as people and as spiritual beings? And is it too daring to suggest that nonbelievers might participate in the fellowship (Hint: Augustine's writings might lend support to this possibility)?