I’ll probably be out of the loop for the rest of the week. I’m heading to the airport to get on a plane to California, and this time I’m taking the whole family!

We’ll hit Disneyland tomorrow and spend the rest of the week at the Pepperdine Bible Lectures. Jill and I will teach a class on Thursday and Friday morning. Then we’ll fly home Saturday so I can preach again at The Bridge on Sunday.

I’m not sure if I’ll have internet access, so this may be the last post for the week. I should probably give you something good to discuss.

Um…okay….

I’m speaking Sunday morning about stem-cell research and cloning. So, let’s see what you have to say about those two hot-button issues.

Should Christians oppose stem-cell research? Why or why not?

Would you ever be in favor of human cloning? Why or why not?

After “The Fall” sin spreads deeper into the human heart and begins to spread wider and wider into society. Eventually, we get to the point where things cannot be any worse. Every thought was only evil all the time.

As bad as we may think our world is, we haven’t gotten to that point — not even close.

So, God chooses to start again. He picks one guy: Abram (later his name would be changed to Abraham). And he makes these outlandish promises to Abram. From this one guy would come a nation through whom all the people on earth would be blessed.

I know there are lots of things in the Bible that are hard to believe. God called a senior citizen to build a big boat and bring every animal on the planet on board to survive a global flood. That’s hard to believe.

But here’s something I wonder if you’ve ever thought about: God called this random guy who lived in the middle of nowhere and made him a totally outrageous promise. Through this one random guy in the middle of nowhere all nations of the earth would be blessed.

And here we sit, thousands of years later, and everyone reading this blog — regardless of where you live — has heard of this one guy named Abraham.

That doesn’t really prove that the entire Bible is completely trustworthy.

But it’s gotta prove something, right?

Okay, enough of my commentary. Why do you think this story is in the Bible? How is it supposed to shape our beliefs system? Our behavior? Our values? What are we supposed to think, feel and do as a result of this story?

I’m still thinking my way through the great Bible stories. Today I’m wondering if you could tell me why God chose to include the story of The Fall.

On the surface, the answer seems pretty obvious, but I’d like your input here.

Also, why do we generally concentrate on Genesis 3 only? Couldn’t we consider Genesis 3-11 the whole story?

I mentioned yesterday that I have several different projects going and many different thoughts banging around in my head. Today I’m preparing for my sermon Sunday morning.

We’re in a series right now called “Culture Crash”, and we’re looking at some of the “hot button” issues in our society. We’ve discussed the environment, and we’ve talked about homosexuality. The following two Sundays I’ll be addressing issues related to bio-ethics.

And most people just had their eyes glaze over.

Bio-ethics does not sound like a very exciting topic for a Sunday morning. But it’s important that we think through these things, so I’m going to do my best to make the topics relevant and engaging for everyone.

Basically, bio-ethical issues can be broken down into two categories: (1) Issues related to medically taking life; (2) Issues related to medically making life. So, the next two Sundays are “Taking Life: What the Bible Says About Euthanasia and Abortion” and “Making Life: What the Bible Says About Cloning, Stem-Cell Research and Reproductive Technology”.

Weighty, controversial and potentially b-o-r-i-n-g.

I have a few questions I’d like to pose here today. First, I know there are several folks in ministry (of various sorts) who frequent this blog. Have any of you preached on these topics? If so, what approach did you take?

Second, if you’re just a regular church-going person and you heard that this Sunday’s sermon was going to be about abortion and euthanasia, what would you want to hear? What would you not want to hear?

Third, I was talking to my friend Bruce Hopler (who never updates his blog) last weekend. He said he’s always been reluctant to preach on topics like these because he struggles with how people would apply the message to their regular lives. It’s probably obvious to most of you — given what you know about my theological and philosophical presuppositions — what I’m going to say. I believe abortion is wrong — theologically, philosophically, scientifically and medically. I believe active euthanasia — intentionally killing a person or withholding assistance that could prolong life — is also wrong. I think I can even explain why I believe what I believe about these issues.

But what are people supposed to do about it? I don’t think I’m going to talk anyone out of taking the life of an unborn this Sunday. I might, but I think I need to say something more than just, “Don’t have an abortion” and “Don’t pull the feeding tubes out of your elderly relatives”.

It’s got to be more than that. It’s got to be more than “Write your congressman!” or “Protest outside your local Planned Parenthood office!” I’m not sure how effective those methods even are.

So, what’s the application?

I will readily admit that my thoughts and posts have been somewhat scattered on the blog lately. I have so many ideas clamoring for my attention, and I’m working on so many different projects. I don’t do very well at planning my blog posts in advance, so what pops into my head at the moment is usually what ends up on the website.

Perhaps I should start doing multiple posts each day.

Right now I’m thinking about this phrase that’s bandied about in some church circles: “Redeeming the Arts”.

I’m sure some of you also received a postcard in your mail this week about the upcoming Arts Conference at Willow Creek Community Church. This was the first church I ever heard use that phrase: Redeeming the Arts. I love the sentiment behind it and applaud their efforts.

But I wonder if churches really mean it.

My good friend Jeff Sandstrom (aka “Dove-Award Winning Music Producer, Jeff Sandstrom”) gave me a book for Christmas titled The Intellectual Devotional: Revive Your Mind, Complete Your Education, and Roam Confidently with the Cultured Class. It’s 365 daily readings about the seven basic fields of knowledge (history, literature, philosophy, mathematics and science, religion, fine arts, and music). It’s been fun to read, and I’ve learned some things along the way. The best books do that, you know. They entertain you and teach you at the same time.

One of the things I’ve been struck with is just how many of the articles end up dealing with Christianity in some form or another. There have been readings about great historical figures like Martin Luther, Galileo, and Renee Descartes. There are articles about great works of art and literature like Michelangelo’s David or Dante’s Divine Comedy. The most famous musical compositions are represented: Handel’s Messiah, Bach’s St. Matthew Passion, Vivaldi’s Four Seasons. There are even articles on great architecture like that found at The Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris.

All of the works and people I mentioned in that last paragraph were influenced and even commissioned by The Church. And it’s got me to wondering.

As much as churches today (emergent folks like Frost & Hirsch, especially) talk about “Redeeming the Arts”, where are the great works of our time? Take the Sistene Chapel, for instance (it happens to be tomorrow’s reading). The ceiling of the Sistene Chapel took about four years to complete. It is undoubtedly one of the most famous works of religious art in the world and has inspired countless people.

Are we doing stuff like that anymore?

Michelangelo’s sculpture of David took more than three years to do, and Michelangelo’s salary was paid the entire time. To do one statue. It is magnificent to behold, a tribute to God’s handiwork and a memorial to Israel’s greatest king, the one through whom Jesus would come into the world.

But is there a church or a religious organization out there that would pay to support an artist fulltime in his creative work like that?

I wonder if the emergent folks might complain about money being wasted when the poor are still among us. Perhaps that money would be better spent setting up soup kitchens and job training programs.

I wonder if the mainstream evangelicals might complain about money being wasted when there are people headed into a Christ-less eternity. Perhaps that money would be better spent printing religious materials and sponsoring missionaries in developing nations.

Whatever legitimacy there may be in those arguments, does it invalidate our desire to redeem the arts?

Is this something churches should be involved in? Should a church take part of its budget and spend it on creating works of visual art, music and literature?

What exactly do we mean when we talk about redeeming the arts?

I’m working on a daily devotional that will be published in the fall of ‘08. And it’s making me read the Bible all the way through as a story — which is a totally new way of reading the Bible for some.

To help me with this endeavor, I’ve enlisted the help of Eugene Peterson (specifically through his book Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading). I have to confess: I’m not a huge fan of some of Peterson’s other books, but I absolutely love this one. It’s challenging and gentle and bold all at the same time.

In light of my most recent post and some of the comments, I was particularly struck by a section where he talks about the many reasons why people read the Bible. Some, he says, read it for intellectual challenge. I’ve certainly been there and done that. Graduate courses in Pauline Theology sort of force you into that boat. And there are plenty of benefits to be derived from such study.

There are others, however, who read it simply to know the best way to live their lives. The Bible, as intellectually stimulating as it is, was meant to be a practical book. It contains the finest wisdom in the world about things like relationships, money-management, etc. If a person would read the Bible and take its counsel to heart, that person would be spared a lot of the trouble that befalls the rest of us!

Still, there are others who read the Bible for inspiration and comfort. Again, there is much to be found in the Bible in this regard. The 23rd Psalm. The Lord’s Prayer. The story of David & Goliath. The parables. 1 Corinthians 13 — the bit about love.

The Bible informs our minds, stirs our hearts and shows us the way to live. There are solid reasons for reading the Bible as an intellectual pursuit or in search of moral guidance or as a source of inspiration.

Many of you suggested that these are among the reasons why you keep going back to this book.

Here’s the part of Peterson’s argument that convicted me:

I don’t want to be too hard on any one of these groups of Bible-readers, especially since I’ve spent considerable time in each group myself, but I do want to call attention to the conspicuous fact that in whatever group you find yourself, you will be using the Bible for your purposes, and those purposes will not necessarily require anything of you relationally. It is entirely possible to come to the Bible in total sincerity, responding to the intellectual challenge it gives, or for the moral guidance it offers, or for the spiritual uplift it provides, and not in any way have to deal with a personally revealing God who has personal designs on you. 

…It is possible to read the Bible from a number of different angles and for various purposes without dealing with God as God has revealed himself, without setting ourselves under the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit who is alive and present in everything we are and do.

To put it bluntly, not everyone who gets interested in the Bible and even gets excited about the Bible wants to get involved with God.

But God is what the book is about.

We’ve had such great conversations here over the past few weeks. Thanks for playing along! Sorry I haven’t been interacting much lately. I’m trying to really push ahead on a writing project, I’m delivering some new lessons that require some solid research, and I’m doing a fair amount of travel these days.

I was packing this morning to leave and stuck a couple of books in my briefcase. I’ve got Frost & Hirsch (still percolating on them), and I just bought Eugene Peterson’s Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading.

There was another book I wanted to bring along, but I only had room for one more. And since I have to preach this weekend I decided to bring my Bible along.

And that’s got me thinking about something. I read a ton. I read a lot of books by a lot of authors, and many of those books are about the Bible (or at least interact with the Bible at some level). This new book by Eugene Peterson is basically about the importance, the necessity, of reading the Bible. I’m a Bible teacher for crying out loud! But do I personally read the Bible much? Really?

No…not that much.

There was a time when I read the Bible like a thirsty man drinks water. There was a time when I read the Bible because I was required to by teachers or professors. There was a time when I read the Bible for information — scouring the pages trying to figure them out. There was a time when I read the Bible because it was fun.

But now? Eh.

I read the Bible to prepare for lessons I’m going to teach or books I’m writing. But I rarely read it anymore just to read it.

I’ve done the “daily Bible reading” plan and the “read the Bible through in a year” plan. I’ve read through it chronologically and systematically. I’ve read through the Bible more times than I can remember.

But it’s been quite some time since I just picked it up and started reading it for no reason other than because it’s good for me.

Am I alone in this? If you don’t read the Bible on a regular basis, can you tell me why? You can do this anonymously if you want (although confession is good for the soul).

And, for those of you who do read it regularly, why do you do it?

Let’s assume that everything that is in the Bible is in there for a reason. I know I’ve got folks from all different positions who read this blog, but let’s just assume that God worked to through the authors, editors and compilers to see to it that everything that needed to get in got in and that the things that got in are there for a good reason.

Some will debate James. Some will debate Revelation. Some will debate Song of Solomon. Some will suggest that Mark should have stopped sooner. Some will suggest that the first 11 chapters of Genesis aren’t supposed to be read literally. I’ve heard all that; let’s push it aside for now.

I think the Bible was written for a number of reasons, but I’d say that the primary reason is to reveal the character and nature of God as he has dealt with people throughout human history.

And my assumption is that everything in the Bible is there for a reason. Sometimes it teaches us lessons. Sometimes it pushes the narrative forward. There are lots of stories in there, and my belief is that these stories were meant to be in there for a reason.

So…if everything is in there for a reason, why do you think the story of Creation is in there?

I’ve been talking with my agent lately, and there’s a big project that I’ve had percolating for a few years that’s about to take on a life of its own. It’s going to require me to think my way through the entire Bible — particularly the great stories — and see how each component fits into and creates a whole that is far greater than the sum of its parts.

Many of us know some of the stories in the Bible, but few of us understand how they connect and form one overarching narrative.

As I attempt to think my way through the Bible, I’d like to enlist your help. I’ll periodically ask questions here, and I would love it if you could think about them and provide simple and concise answers.

For starters, why do you think the Bible was written?

Jesus was Jewish.

That doesn’t sound like an earth-shattering, paradigm-moving statement, but it has tremendous implications that we would be foolish to avoid.

Jesus was a Jew, and his approach to life was Hebraic. He spends little time speculating on philosophical notions or theories. He doesn’t talk much about abstract principles. He usually spoke in practical and relational terms.

One of the implications of this understanding of Jesus is that we must reconsider what Christians are called to. We tend to refer to Christians as “believers”. The earliest Christians referred to themselves as “followers”.

Sometimes Jesus called people to believe in him, but he meant something other than mental assent. When he said, “Believe in me” he meant “Follow me”.

What’s the difference between being “believers” and being “followers”?

What would change in our churches if we stopped calling people to simply “believe” and started challenging them to “follow”?