We're all Hypocrites in (Current Year)

“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

-St. Paul, Epistle to the Romans

I don't know where to start.

As somebody that professes a low view of the human condition, I shouldn't be surprised. People are scared, and when people are scared, they bark.

And what are we scared of?

From what I can tell we're scared of the collapse of the Republic, a nuclear war with Russian, the Islamic State, and green frogs.

Now, being trained in history and having a history of being emotionally constipated, I try to not let myself get swept into believing every accusation that is thrown every which-way. Of course, this makes me look like a supporter of some current oppressive culture of the week. It's great for finding truth but terrible for virtue signaling, which of course, is the seventh love language.

But again, where do I start?

Well first, let me start with my own generation. We are no longer voting for a candidate, but against one. The Christians that I know via the Internet are wont to want to be seen as #woke and/or culturally sensitive. Well, of course there's rape culture. Why yes, of course blacks, I mean, people of color, are treated terribly. Well, of course, the Gospel(TM) should transform the way we view culture.

The great thing about this is that we get to bind the consciences of men and women everywhere in the name of God while we feel self-righteous in the process. Indeed, the same people who will chew out a conservative for not wanting to "bake the cake" will espouse love. The people who see certain candidates as advancing women's agendas will shrug when a boy is sexually abused by his teacher. Indeed, we won't grab them by cat but we will cut off their sacks. It's all banter, woman's talk after all.

Also for God's sake, posting and reading memes is a not a valid way of having reasoned discourse and/or learning about the world. Stop reading this post and read a book instead.

Then we get to Generation X. Clueless was a great film, don't get me wrong, and I'm also a fan of STP and Depeche Mode, but you're just as bad, aren't you? You have no thoughts of your own. You follow the Boomers' claims because you're incapable of thinking for yourself and yet, because you're not that old yet, you indulge in some idealogy without commitment. Yes yes, rape is bad. Yes yes, we should end poverty. But I'm going to live in my suburb, but I'm going to not believe that story because he'd never do that.

I'm just as annoyed at you, X-Christians, by the way. I go to your blogs, to your websites. You contribute nothing but regurgitated evangelicalism, the same Christianity that almost ruined me.

I can keep going of course. The edgy ones are the worst. The ones with the podcasts. The ones who think they're going to solve Christianity by going forward. The ones who have no degrees in theology, but because they're musicians, because they have money, they have the right to an opinion.

Disgusting, a pox on your house.

But finally, we get to the Boomers. I know, I know, you didn't start the fire, but this is your fault you know. You sold out the conservative movement. You sold out the poor to corporate interests in the name of progress.

But my God, your behaviour towards the Church! Condemning a man as a heretic before he publishes a book, and I think that man is a douche bag too! Defending an errant view of the Trinity in the name of gender roles! Pushing the church growth movement without understanding that the model hurts the inner city! Trying not to be the Religious Right by being Gospel-Centered(TM) but, in the end, binding the consciences of the Leftists and the Libertarians! Peace peace when there is no peace!

How can I respect you when you come into the room? How can I take you seriously if you need to go to your safe space after being criticized? How can I care for you when you pretend to be normal?

But that's me isn't it?

Paul's talking about me, isn't he?

A long, meandering reflection on Christian singing

In my attempt to keep myself educated about, well, everything, I've been reading books on the history of Christian music and worship.

One is Oxford's History of Christian Worship and the other is a volume edited by a Tim Dowley called Christian Music: A Global History. But why the history Christian worship and music?

Because I think I'm right about how things should be done, but I want to see how other people think they're right about how things should be done so I can feel more comfortable thinking and feeling that I'm right.

Basically, I want to win arguments.

Petty, I know.

But something's that struck me as interesting are two remarkable consistent strands in the history of these subjects which are:

1) The Church's historical commitment to a form of liturgical worship.
2) The Church's battle between music that is pretty but un-singable v. music that is ugly but suitable for the vulgar tongue.

The first is unsurprising to me. I've always known that liturgical worship was existent in the Church and that America was wrong. Of course, nobody ever believes me because they want to have their feelings affirmed on a Sunday morning. I do too, but it's the difference between eating chocolate cake and eating your vegetables. I get satisfied knowing I get all my vitamins on a Sunday morning. A lot of Christendom my age in the West get satisfied getting diabetes.

But that's not the meat (no pun intended) of this "article". No, the meat of this article is a quote. From Dowley's volume:

""Palestrina: saviour of church music" is a frequently repeated myth that was even used as the the plt for the opera Palestrina... According to this legend, the Council of Trent was about to ban polyphonic music completely, and only relented after hearing a piece by Palestrisa... The Council of Trent aimed to reform the Catholic church, and as part of this policy a strong impetus built up to reject polyphony and return to the sole use of the chant. In 1562, the council ordered authorities to "banish from church all music that contains, whether in singing or in organ-playing, things that are lascivious or impure" and to reject the trend for complex vocal pieces: the text had henceforth to be clearly intelligible to all."

- Christian Music: A Global History, 77-78.

The book goes on to say that the genius of Palestrina was in having polyphonic music that was singable for the average person (78).

A different time (the Renaissance), a different genre (polyphonic chant), but the same complaints (is it appropriate for worship?).

History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.

This got me to thinking, or at least, to clarifying my objections to much of contemporary Christian music. We play electric guitars that are amplified and thus the voices are unable to be heard. Heck, when I visited the "traditional" service of a Presbyterian church in South Florida, I complained that the choir and organ were too loud. And talking to a missionary to Haiti helped me sharpen the fact that I'm not opposed to all instrumentation per se but rather I am opposed to bad texts and inappropriate settings for said texts.

Now, it just so happens that I think most contemporary Christian music (CCM) is bad and that I cannot be convinced otherwise.

Likewise, I share a commitment to a church singing the Psalter and appropriate hymns. A Psalter-Hymnal can go a long way in doing this.

But again, chocolate cake versus vegetables. Everybody loves cakes. Nobody loves vegetables. Like, at most, but not love.

But here we are, facing the same problems that the Church faced so many years ago.

Do I have a solution? Sure. Stop being electric, be creative with instrumentation to help enhance congregational singing, and stop writing such terrible songs.

Of course that will never happen. Because cake.

With no cake,

-SJG

Are Black churches apostate?

"If the church was being the church, Troost wouldn't be at the state it is today"

-An EPC minister at a Bible church, speaking about the "ghetto" in KCMO

"If the church is able to be the church, we can bring transform this city!"

-A PCA Minister

"Our vision is to see the body of Christ in center-city New York triple to 15%—which we believe might amount to a tipping point that does more than change individual lives, but enhances the long-term life of our city for everyone in it."

-Tim Keller, Head of Redeemer City to City, Former Senior Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church

Gee whiz, I really hope those black ministers are listening. They should try harder so they can transform the city, even though there are a mix of issues as to why such a thing as the ghetto exists.

If you can't tell, the above sentence was sarcastic.

Those that know me well know that I am a rather consistent conservative. Indeed, I've been compared to Ron Swanson of Parks and Recreation, and it is a comparison I'm rather proud of. I am not one to speak of systemic anything and I am usually the first to speak against my community (Cubans and Latins in general) for fornicating and becoming a "statistic". Now, while those that know me well might disagree with how our peoples can best be lifted up, those that disagree with me would say "Our people need to be lifted up".

Where it gets awkward are when ministers want to play politics.

Specifically, so called "conservative" ministers.

Now, let me paint an image with my words. You are visiting a church in the inner city. It's black, or it can be a minority church. The pastor preaches a mediocre sermon (by your standards) but the people eat it up. The worship isn't quite your style, they're doing Gospel songs. The liturgy is subpar, at best, but darnit the people love it.

Unfortunately the neighbourhood around it shows no change, clearly this church is apostate.

Clearly.

Let's visit St. James' Episcopal Church in generic black part of down that is poor. The minister just said that it is a wonderful thing that God works outside of Christ in order to expand their kingdom. By the way, vote for Hillary/Stein!

Apostate, going to Hell, that priest is a false teacher.

By your standards anyway.

See, let's pretend that churches are able to transform neighbourhoods. Let's also pretend that it's part of the mission of the church to encourage "human flourishing". Will a progressive white person, saddled by theories of privilege and white guilt, go into a poor church and state that these churches are failures because the neighbourhoods haven't changed?

Of course they won't. Their multicultural education won't let them.

So why do they keep stating that churches can change neighbourhoods? And more importantly, why do people say churches should change neighbourhoods?

Now, I can't speak to the black church experience. I'm just using the example of the black church experience because being black will get you more media than being brown. And even than, I'm not brown. But that's a different post.

Now if minister wants to say "Christians should be involved in loving their neighbours and doing the best they can, with wisdom", than sure, I can agree with that!

But if a minister says that the church needs to change the city, I'm just going to assume that they think poor people churches are apostate.

That is the logical conclusion of that thought no?

I'm just some guy though.

Always Confused,

-SJG

You Don't Want God's Kingdom to Come

And the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not fear and do not be dismayed. Take all the fighting men with you, and arise, go up to Ai. See, I have given into your hand the king of Ai, and his people, his city, and his land. And you shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king. Only its spoil and its livestock you shall take as plunder for yourselves. Lay an ambush against the city, behind it.” So Joshua and all the fighting men arose to go up to Ai. And Joshua chose 30,000 mighty men of valor and sent them out by night. And he commanded them, “Behold, you shall lie in ambush against the city, behind it. Do not go very far from the city, but all of you remain ready. And I and all the people who are with me will approach the city. And when they come out against us just as before, we shall flee before them. And they will come out after us, until we have drawn them away from the city. For they will say, ‘They are fleeing from us, just as before.’ So we will flee before them. Then you shall rise up from the ambush and seize the city, for the LORD your God will give it into your hand. And as soon as you have taken the city, you shall set the city on fire. You shall do according to the word of the LORD. See, I have commanded you.” So Joshua sent them out. And they went to the place of ambush and lay between Bethel and Ai, to the west of Ai, but Joshua spent that night among the people. Joshua arose early in the morning and mustered the people and went up, he and the elders of Israel, before the people to Ai. And all the fighting men who were with him went up and drew near before the city and encamped on the north side of Ai, with a ravine between them and Ai. He took about 5,000 men and set them in ambush between Bethel and Ai, to the west of the city. So they stationed the forces, the main encampment that was north of the city and its rear guard west of the city. But Joshua spent that night in the valley. And as soon as the king of Ai saw this, he and all his people, the men of the city, hurried and went out early to the appointed place toward the Arabah to meet Israel in battle. But he did not know that there was an ambush against him behind the city. And Joshua and all Israel pretended to be beaten before them and fled in the direction of the wilderness. So all the people who were in the city were called together to pursue them, and as they pursued Joshua they were drawn away from the city. Not a man was left in Ai or Bethel who did not go out after Israel. They left the city open and pursued Israel. Then the LORD said to Joshua, “Stretch out the javelin that is in your hand toward Ai, for I will give it into your hand.” And Joshua stretched out the javelin that was in his hand toward the city. And the men in the ambush rose quickly out of their place, and as soon as he had stretched out his hand, they ran and entered the city and captured it. And they hurried to set the city on fire. So when the men of Ai looked back, behold, the smoke of the city went up to heaven, and they had no power to flee this way or that, for the people who fled to the wilderness turned back against the pursuers. And when Joshua and all Israel saw that the ambush had captured the city, and that the smoke of the city went up, then they turned back and struck down the men of Ai. And the others came out from the city against them, so they were in the midst of Israel, some on this side, and some on that side. And Israel struck them down, until there was left none that survived or escaped. But the king of Ai they took alive, and brought him near to Joshua. When Israel had finished killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the open wilderness where they pursued them, and all of them to the very last had fallen by the edge of the sword, all Israel returned to Ai and struck it down with the edge of the sword. And all who fell that day, both men and women, were 12,000, all the people of Ai. But Joshua did not draw back his hand with which he stretched out the javelin until he had devoted all the inhabitants of Ai to destruction. Only the livestock and the spoil of that city Israel took as their plunder, according to the word of the LORD that he commanded Joshua. So Joshua burned Ai and made it forever a heap of ruins, as it is to this day. And he hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening. And at sunset Joshua commanded, and they took his body down from the tree and threw it at the entrance of the gate of the city and raised over it a great heap of stones, which stands there to this day. (Joshua 8, English Standard Version)


Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh. (The Revelation 19:11-21, ESV)

I don't think Christians know what they mean when they speak of bringing God's kingdom here.

Now, as far as I gather, according to many of my brothers and sisters in the faith, God's kingdom involves a sort of pro life welfare state where every person has emotional stability and the arts are celebrated, for some reason. Also there is no racism, sexism, ismism, and well, you name a societal ill and you got it removed.

Well that just makes reading the Bible so much more awkward, I would imagine.

Every time I see God's kingdom coming into Earth in a substantial way in the Bible, people seem to die. When Israel marched into Canaan, a lot of people died. When Jesus is spoken of coming back to "set the world to rights", his robe is covered in the blood of his enemies.

I wonder how most of Christendom deals with that.

Then there's the problem of asking every Christian to bring the kingdom on Earth. Again, my autistic (and I mean that as an insult as well) brain goes to work. So every Christian must bring the kingdom? What happens if they don't bring the kingdom, are they excommunicated from the local church? Eh probably not because nobody believes in church membership anyway and in the States we have the blessing/curse of switching church according to our eccentricities.

Whatever.

Let me keep going. So let's say we can discipline Christians that strictly (ha ha ha). So how does bring the kingdom down here look like? Well, good Christians vote for Trump/Hillary/Sanders/Johnson/do not vote/vote for "liberal" policies/vote for "conservative" policies.

Oh boy, so now we're telling people how to vote. That's not even in the Bible.

Whatever.

Wait, you tell me. We're trying to transform the culture, we're not telling people how to vote.

Ah, yes, because when I read the Bible, I see that God supports a multi cultural welfare state/free market anarchist policy that happens to coalesce with your particular vision of things.

Every time God's kingdom comes, people die. When God's kingdom came in a substantial way, Jesus died. When God's kingdom will come, there will be a great judgment.

Why do Christians want to bring this violence upon themselves?

I mean, they don't. But every time I hear a Christian talk about bringing God's kingdom on Earth, I get scared. I get scared because if I disagree with them, would they be willing to kill me or silent me? I speak of "both sides" of the political cultural divide.

And when I hear pastors talk about it, that's when I get most annoyed.

I get annoyed because when I see pastors using that language, they mean starting a church in a rich part of town (not in the hood or a rural part of the States) or they follow whatever the Gospel Coalition(TM) is pushing.
After all, Christians must engage the culture.

Now here's the thing. I do want God's kingdom to come. I'm tired of evil existing and I'm tired of people dying for no good reason. But, at the same time, I don't know how God's kingdom is going to look like other than it's going to be "Life" and all things will be made right. The political program is irrelevant to me, in a sense, other than the fact that Jesus will be made to be seen as Lord.

But if it's going to come through people pushing a certain political or cultural agenda, I don't want that. I don't want to be told how to make political decisions or think about cultural issues with God's name attached to it.

I'm looking at you, Sojourners/TGC.

Of course, I don't this blog post will change anybody's mind. Nor do I think I'm that important of a person to listen to.

But it's either write it down or annoy my poor wife with my thoughts.

Maranatha,

-SJG

Me and the Grown Male

I've observed an interesting phenomenon about myself, as you do when you indulge in the vice of naval gazing.

That phenomenon is rather simple. The phenomenon is this. The phenomenon is that when I speak, people listen, especially older men, and that when I speak, I inspire a feeling. This feeling seems to be one of anger, insecurity, or fear.

I honestly don't know what they're so scared of to be honest.

Look at me, I have a mustache. I am easily killed: I don't own a gun and I have terrible motor skills. I take medication for depression and anxiety and I am on the autism spectrum. I think about killing myself twice a month. I am slightly overweight. I have to wear glasses to see lest I don't see. I am poor.

And yet.

And yet.

I have gift/curse. When I speak, people listen. Never mind the fact that it never occurs to me that people take me seriously because of the above, no. I am not a successful male accord to new or old world standards. I have not fornicated with a variety of women, I don't have a brood serving me hand and foot, I don't make a six figure income, and I am too hairy to be understanding of today's virtue signaling.

And yet here I am.

I suppose I should write of some examples.

Here's one. When I spoke to a (Presbyterian!) minister of catechesis to encourage "spiritual" growth, I am mocked for using a big word, a big word that is part of our tradition. Heck, it's part of every major Christian tradition.

Or, when I am asked if I think everybody should agree with me, I answer "Of course". I'd like to think I am honest. Everybody wants them to agree with them. If a person agrees with you, they love and accept you right? Well, no, but this is the life we life.

But more than that, if I think I'm right, wouldn't I want another person to be right too?

Now to be fair, I ended up walking away enraged because I was running on vomit instead of sleep, but still. It would be nice if these older men I talk to had more self awareness.

Not that I have much either, to be honest.

More recently I voiced my disagreement during a meeting. The older man asked me afterwards that I should have not spoken up because my disagreement was too nuanced and that the people there might take me seriously.

God forbid.

I spoke about this to my wife.

I have a deep voice and I speak confidently. She tells me that when I speak, it doesn't sound like an opinion, it sounds like a fact. I told her that when everybody speaks, they think it's a fact even though it's an opinion. She agreed with me, but she also advised me that people don't understand that when I speak, I (hopefully for the most part) invite conflict and refutation, according to the rules of the game, whatever those rules may be.

But other people don't want conflict. They want to be affirmed and told they are right.

So it confuses me when a grown man seeks this from somebody as weak as me. I am a nothing, in the larger scheme of things. I would hope God continually reminds me of this. Even writing this makes me feel I'm humble bragging.

And these grown men? They are always successful. They have kids, they have money, they usually have a loving wife, and they have a job. Why are they threatened by me? What power do I hold?

Of course I'm not innocent in all this. I agree that tone is such that it sounds disrespectful.

Maybe I need to start treating grown men like human beings and like people who are hurting, like I do everybody else.

Maybe grown men need Jesus too.

If that's the case, it is a comedy that grown men, men who I see as pillars of society, are just as weak as I am.

Or maybe I think too highly of myself and I'm just a disrespectful jerk that needs a good smacking.

Who knows.

Pressing the wrong buttons,

-SJG

P.S.

I hope to write something more positive in the future. Even I get tired of tearing down.

I saw God at a rock concert

You know, if this were a Relevant magazine article, I'd say that God is at work through all things. If this were Christianity Today, I'd say grace perfects nature.

Alas.

I enjoy listening to rock. Though, enjoy is not a word strong enough to convey the dedication I have for the genre. If one were to look for my Spotify, one would notice a large number of music that requires a guitar. There is something (something) in me that smiles when I hear Bill Joel "It's all rock n' roll to me" or Dire Straits' soft guitar leads on "Sultan of Swing".

How happy I was when I heard one of my favorite bands was coming to town.

Mogwai is one of my favorite instrumental bands. Their songs names are rather silly (I'm Jim Morrison and I'm Dead, Autorock, Glasgow Mega-Snake) but they have a way of making the heavy sound beautiful.

Therefore.

My wife and I went to see them live in concert. I saved money and we went into the middle of Downtown Miami. They had just released their latest album at the time and I was a big fan of it.

I walked in and felt self conscious, as always. People were smoking cigarettes and the guys had pants on that would leave me with no oxygen. Still, I didn't come to make friends. I came to say a rock band that I liked.

Then they got on the stage.

I was so happy. It was probably one of the happiest times in my life that didn't require alcohol. They had a smoke machine and lasers, it was was all rather cheesy. Yet they played songs that I knew. They played the riffs that I had memorized long ago. When they went into the first drop of Fear Satan I screamed my lungs into oblivion.

And I saw God.

At least that's what my body told me.

Fast forward a few years later and I'm married. I am looking for a new church and I encounter Christians of different stripes. They are not different because there are all sorts of Christians in Kansas City, they are different because they disagree with me. More than that, they're different because they're not from Miami. At least in Miami, I had the pretense of a common cultural experience. I don't have that luxury in the Midwest.

Now.

Something I've noticed is that Christians seek God. A no brainer, one would say. But track with me. Christians seek God the same way a wine taster seeks new wine, a coffee drinker seeks a better ground, a man seeks a prettier woman to validate his existence.

I suppose what I am trying to say, is, that, Christians, do not like mediocrity. If I had to compare it to something else, Christians are trying to have better sex with God.

Yes yes, I know, #NotAllChristians, but it's about me right now.

But yes I suppose it's not Christians, it's humans. They're always trying to find something new to keep them going. Something new to spark the mind. Something new to say that "they were there". Boredom is verboten. 

Why talk about sex? Well, why not? The Bible uses the marriage analogy to describe how God relates to His people. I might as well talk about sex. Specifically, orgasms. People seek better orgasms. They get close to the edge, back off, and arrive at destination.

Christians want better orgasms. They do this by committing themselves to a pastor's vision, to proclaiming that they are bringing God's kingdom, by praying for revival, by wanting to love on more and more people, by praying harder, by reading their Bible more, by getting involved in politics, by attaching themselves to the latest trend (we are not long purpose driven, but missional), I mean, I can go on.

But the problem is, I experienced this better orgasm at a rock concert.

Most humans experience better orgasms at a rock concert.

And really when a Christian tries to experience a better orgasm within a "spiritual" sphere, they fail. They fail because gravity will always win. Those Christians that don't fail, succeed, but they become insufferable to be around. They hate being around me because I am such a downer, and I hate them because I wish they'd see my humanity and tell me my pain is real.

It doesn't stop Christians, of course.

I don't know how many Christians I've met trying to get closer to God when they don't realize that God has communed with us in His Son. They find bread, wine, water, and sound boring though they are what give life. What feeds us, feeds us. But I suppose a revival is more exciting than an old man wearing a suit.

But as for me and my house? I see God every Sunday when His words are spoken by broken men. I see God when I commune with Him through the bread and the wine. I see God when I am reminded of the water that washes my dirt away as the blood washes my sin away.

My body might not feel like it's taken to the third heaven every Sunday, but at least I know my God is with me.

Marantha,

-SJG

How to have a successful church in Miami FL

1) Be an attractive pastor. Nobody wants to watch an ugly pastor preach. Even if you're elderly, wear Ed Hardy or at least something that can travel well. Ed Young is very good at this. He is a very old man but he dresses well.

2) Have a vision. It can be a vision from God, it can be a vision you can prooftext using the Bible, but you need a vision. Some visions can include transforming the city, healing people, telling people about Jesus, finding people's God potential, connecting people to God, others, ministry, and the World. It doesn't need to mean anything, really. You just need a catchy slogan for the common people. People find Word and Sacrament ministry boring, and we don't want to be boring.

3) Have an elaborate worship style. Now, some people will tell you to get a praise band, but that's not true. What you need to do is learn about the musical tastes of the demographic you wish to reach. Some people want rock bands, others want choirs with orchestras. You need talented people to replicate the sounds of the demographic and era you're in. Now, being in Miami FL, nobody wants choirs. That reminds them of dead religion. You want a rock band with no ugly people. Remember, to be ugly is to not be in Christ.

4) Be open to moves of the Spirit. I mean, look, as we know, having a successful Christian church implies disobeying the words of Scripture and the traditions of those who have come before us. All you have to do is tell people that the Holy Spirit told you to do something and people will submit. Nobody wants to sin against the Holy Spirit, after all.

5) Be a-political. Look, the culture war is dead. Now, I know you want to bring healing to the city, but the great part about not having any depth to what your church does is that you don't have to talk about legislation. 

6) Be political. Those Leftists/Nazis are ruining this great country and you need to use your platform as a minister of God's word to get them to vote for Trump/Clinton/Sanders/Johnson. 

7) Use words that are popular in academia. Angst, existential, post modern. These needs to be in your repertoire. I mean, I don't think anybody in philosophy departments take the post modern movement seriously anymore, but your congregation is too ignorant to know that.

8) Don't use big words. Look. Your congregation is dumb. That's why they're called sheep. Keep it simple and don't talk about justification by grace through faith. That'll get you crucified upside down.

9) Say that you're for social justice. Look, it's really cool to be an economist right now. Or at least pretending you care about social causes. Affirming the Belhar Confession can go a long way.

10) Only meet with rich people. Look, poor, mentally ill people have nothing to offer the Church. Look at Paul. He went from city to city and only met with the rich. That's how he got his church plant in Ephesus started. They're still going today!

11) Doctrine is not important when it comes to staffing decisions. Look, whether you call it being Gospel centered or following Jesus, nobody cares if your executive pastor is a semi Pelagian or if you hire a guy who thinks Left Behind is a great exposition of how the world will end. The point is, you're looking for talent, not thinkers.

12)  Pretend to admire Latino culture. Look, you're in Miami FL. You have to be for diversity. I know that Latino culture has its problems (abusive men, sexual promiscuity, boys with mother issues), but you need their money! Besides, if it's for Jesus it's fine.

13) Pray for revival. Look, I know, that the revival two revivals ago was started by a heretic and the revivals afterwards have led to churches with pastors that they've caught a vision from God. But don't let that stop you. Sometimes God repents. It's in Genesis!

14) Celebrate every civil holiday as often as possible. If you're not celebrating Mother's Day at church you're gonna get fired. Especially in Miami.

15) Don't be evangelistic, be missional. In fact if you can find a cooler word than what's available in the Bible, that's the word to use. Communitas, living together, missional, being for the city. Loving your neighbour, nope. Nuh uh, no way. Nein. 

...

I'm so sorry.

-SJG

Glorious Nippon and Bible Tests

I remember when I was in high school, I swore off anime after watching a character arc in Inuyusha end with no resolution.

Now I find myself watching anime and other sorts of Japanese media.

Understand, I have a lot of friends who are into Japanese culture. And I respect their opinions because they're studied Japan academically. I know that whatever they tell me is probably true of Japan. As a result, I've gained a respect for Japanese pop culture over time.

But my problem is that I never want to see what's popular now. I like to see what was popular than so I can again an appreciation of the present. I suppose having a BA in History, I approach all subjects like this. Whether I'm good at it or not is a different story.

So I found myself watching four seasons worth of Japanese Power Rangers (Super Sentai) and one old anime (Super Dimension Fortress Macross), many of them involving love triangles and coming of age stories, and not a few bringing me to tears.

But I can watch them because there are explosions and giant robots involved.

Anyway.

I've also been trying to keep myself sharp since I'm not in seminary right now. I just finished reading NT Wright's The New Testament and the People of God and still working my way through Geerhardus Vos and Meredith Kline. I feel "smarter" for it, not only because it's good for me, but because my ego has a nice boost from having accomplished such a project.

Yes, I know my self esteem should not be derived from reading books, but here we are.

I've also been taking Bible tests online based off the PC(USA)'s Bible content tests. The reason is because I'm hoping ECO will want to ordain me in the future, unless I change or life changes me, of course. They have a similar test for ordination and I always think my Bible knowledge is weak. Saying that, I find myself passing often enough. Try it for yourself and see if you can get ordained!

I still miss Miami though. I was able to talk to a Venezuelan up here while eating breaded chicken with rice and beans, in Spanish. It made me realize how much I take cultural diversity for granted. Or at least, people that are Latin/Hispanic.

Um.

I do recommend people watch older anime. I find that, at least the one's I've seen, they have a better understanding of the human condition than the more modern stuff I've been exposed to. Maybe I just like shows that explore what it's like to become a man... with giant robots.

Also for those that care, feel free to send me a message on Facebook or call me. I will talk back and/or call back.

Tenshinda!,

SJG

Muh Reading

What does one do when one's work schedule is flexible?

One watches YouTube videos, one plays video games, and one reads.

I suppose I want to discuss the third.

And I suppose I'll talk about being Presbyterian later. This blog is by, to, through, from, and for me, after all.

My wife wanted me to pray with her and do "devotional" things. Now, understand. I don't like praying before I eat. I see it as a waste of time. Nor do I enjoy the emphasis in American Evangelicalism to stress daily Bible reading and prayer without teaching a theology of a "means of grace", let alone, teaching folk how one should pray in the first place and how one should read said Bible.

It's worse because part of wants to say that early Christians would make terrible evangelicals, since, well, they didn't have Bibles.

Though I suppose they had creeds to think about.

Nevertheless, I decided it was my husbandly duty to be "spiritual", religion even. So what are we doing? We're going through Starr Meade's book for junior high and high school kids on the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

One paragraph a day, a few verses, with a question from the catechism for the week. It's easy, requires no preparation, my wife is learning the Faith, and I'm getting ready for Presbytery. After I read the paragraph we do the Lord's Prayer and go back to daily life. I get to feel like I'm being a decent husband while we all learn.

I suppose that is self-righteous huh?

To complement Starr Meade, I'm reading Thomas Watson's  Body of Divinity (which is free on Kindle). It's the first part of a trilogy he made as a commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism. He's easier to read than Owen and I like learning systematic theology as it was, say, 350 years ago.

I also realized that I should add substance to the conversations. Plus, I wanna be able to say that I read a Puritan work so I can seem holy and knowledgeable.

Pathetic I know.

On top of the two above books, I've decide to pursue the subject of Biblical theology, which can be summed up as "the science of seeing how God saved his people in the olden days". My church loves redemptive history. I feel weak in this area. So, I figured I'd catch up with two books.

The first book is Meredith Kline's Kingdom Prologue, which is a commentary on Genesis 1-11 with an eye towards God's work of advancing His kingdom through Abraham's Seed/seed. It's a controversial work in some circles, but it seems to affirm and strengthen convictions I already hold, convictions that would take too long to explain in a blog post.

The second book is Geerhardus Vos' Biblical Theology. It is a book with essays about the history of revelation and redemption in the Bible, with a strong focus towards the Old Testament.

I suppose I should mention one thing I've learned huh?

I've found that I can no longer say "Jesus died for the sins of world" as a Gospel presentation. If I were to "share" my "faith" with another human being, I'd want to go from creation through Israel to Christ. Jesus doesn't make sense without the Old Testament. At best, Christianity is a series of philosophical assertions that can be universalized if there is no history behind it.

At worst it's a dumb idea.

I suppose I should state now that I'm not the biggest fan of tracts or "sharing my testimony", considering I find the first to be dishonest and the second to be too subjective.

Anyway.

I'm supposed to finish Images of the Spirit and St. Augustine's The City of God (especially in these wild times) but, eh, I got sidetracked.

I did finish reading my pastor's presentation at Presbytery regarding the tripartite division of the Law. It was the size of a small book. I felt proud of myself.

How did you get this far?

Having a Maundy Thursday,

-SJG

On Being Presbyterian, Pt. I

I noticed something once when I was showering, which is where I notice all things. What I noticed, is, that people meet me not knowing my history. Or worse, they get to know me, not knowing my history.

And when they meet me, I repeat the staled old lines "I am a seminary student studying to be a Presbyterian minister." The person who is not a Christian, could care less. I just tell them that we like to drink and this leaves them satisfied. It leaves me satisfied to, as if I have an in. I feel "cool".

To the Christian, however, I am an enigma. "A Presbyterian?" They think to themselves. "What is that?"

Well, excuse this discursion. I want to talk about myself more than usual. For the next few weeks.

It started many years ago when I saw Mark Driscoll on a large television yelling at me. Well, not at me, but in my direction, certainly. The youth pastor I served under was a committed Driscollian. He wanted people to commit to his vision of the Christian life. I never could, of course. I'm far too insecure and bookish for that.

Though this Driscoll always went on about being a Calvinist, as inconsistent as he was. "What is Calvinism?" I thought to myself. I didn't like that whole thing about election. It made seem God seem mean, capricious.

At the same time, however, I was rather dissatisfied at how the Baptist megachurch I was a part of was run. "Surely this is not how it was done for hundreds of years" I thought.

Being the historian I would like to be, I decided to go to the source.

I read Calvin.

Specifically, I plowed through most of Calvin's 4th Book of his Institutes, which is his treatise on the Church.

Calvin was not a Baptist. He wasn't a Roman Catholic either, but he was in dialogue with the past. He was measured, for the most part. He cited the Scriptures, he argued with St. Augustine and cited St. Jerome and Cyprian.

I loved it.

Finally, a Christianity that was historical.

The tragedy in all this is that I had become paedobaptist in a Baptist church.

At this point I want to make a comment and leave things in suspense. Living in the downtown area of KCMO, there are a few big churches that people attend. You can attend the large Acts 29 Baptist church, IHOP (International House of Pentecostal Loonies, or Prayer), or small storefront churches that are not affiliated with any denomination.

There's also the largest United Methodist church in the country.

All of that to say, American Christendom is not Protestant, at least historically. It's Anabaptist, but they call themselves Protestant.

But eh, I'll leave that for later.

Surrounded by beards,

-SJG

Why Evangelicalism, Comrade?

I've wanted to write about how I decided to deem myself Presbyterian, but that would take a bit long. Though, there is something I've always wanted to bother my evangelical friends about.

Why do you follow the latest fads?

Some evangelical friends of mine like listening to modern worship music. Others are entranced by ways of doing church that contradict how the Church has done ministry for thousands of years. I can only put it down for two reasons.

1) Ignorance.
2) Sentiment.

On the first, ignorance. When I speak of liturgical worship, the Sacraments, and connectional confessionalism, I seem strange. People read the Bible for devotional purposes but miss that there are basic themes for structuring a church there, for worship. That's fine. We're all ignorant.

Though the second, sentiment, is what gets under my jaw. Never mind that most modern worship music cannot compare to a Psalm or a well written hymn. Never mind the fact that contemporary methods of ministry lead to no knowledge of Scripture, at best, or abuse at worst. Never mind that the non denominational churches are fun by divine fiat equivalent to the reign of Charles I.

So this is where it gets more confusing for me.

My friends, who objectively agree that my version of church is better, or at least a type of valid, still go to these churches. My friends, who hate what evangelicalism has done to them and to their friends, still support their ministries because, well, where else can you go?

It's almost Stockholm Syndrome.

I will say this. It is very strange going to a church or being part of a Christian organization where I am not going against the grain on most things. Though, I do wish we had a more liturgical bent, but what can you do?

Hopped on caffeine,

-SJG

My Thoughts on the Theology of Marriage Thus Far (Long)

Having been married for two months (so long?), this idea keeps pestering me. It keeps pestering me because it exists and I'm a Christian, so I have to deal with it. I could say that it's irrelevant, but that's intellectually dishonest on my part.

There's also the fact that some of my wife's friends are taking a "conservative" turn than what I figured they would. If you're reading this, you know who you are. This led to conversation and/or debate about how husbands and wives are to relate to each other. Honestly, as "conservative" as I am on the issue, I find that trying to impose a general rule of life and personality type on husband and wife is, well, stupid. My own reading of the commentaries on the Westminster's Larger and Shorter Catechisms exposition of the Fifth Commandment (where this issue is traditionally placed) has a more egalitarian twist than emphasized in contemporary "evangelical" discourse. Not only that, but every confessional Presbyterian I speak to rolls their eyes at the mention of the word "complementarian". So do I, mind you, but this makes this issue even more awkward for me.

So what follows are a series of thoughts that I have when I try to navigate this issue. As a result, it's going to be long and boring. They don't follow a logic, but rather think of them as a bunch of french fries that need to be eaten together in order to have an average experience.

1) The Song of Solomon needs to be talked about in all of this. I keep reading it because I like to know how marriage works. I read it and it seems that women have a lot more initiative than contemporary "evangelical" discourse allows for. In fact, one could call the woman "thirsty" for her husband to be. The woman is not frigid, comfortable in her sexuality, and is lusting for her husband to be. And every book and article I've read on marriage  does not talk about the Song. A huge oversight, in my opinion.

2) The story of Ruth needs to to be talked about in all of this. This is a continuation of the first thesis. Ruth went after Boaz, and some liberal interpreters thinks that Ruth slept with Boaz in order to have him. Not that I approve of premarital sex, but again, there are some preachers that say that men pursue and women stand there. But I don't see that in the Bible.

3) The Gospel and its benefits needs to be part of this conversation. Of course, everybody likes to say "Of course!" but I don't think people do it often. Again, I am a cynic. How does the doctrine of justification intersect with married life? How does does the doctrine of adoption intersect with married life?

4) In light of number three, the doctrine of sanctification needs to come into play. Specifically, the Pauline idea of cruciformity. Jesus dies and is raised and so the Church dies and live with Him. If this is the pattern presented to us in the Pauline corpus, it needs to be integrated into our understanding of marriage. Perhaps the husbands submits more than he thinks, perhaps the wife is raised more than she thinks.

5) Historical theological work needs to be done. Too much of contemporary "evangelical" discourse on marriage roles, as an observation, is a reaction/response to 2nd and 3rd wave feminism. How did marriage look like in the Church before feminism existed? I don't see this being discussed. Katie Luther is a saint in Reformation circles because she ran the home and put Luther in his place when he got absurd. Not that I praise Martin and Katie as a universal model for all marriages, but they seemed happy.

6) The mutuality of submission needs to be brought to bear. I see two errors occur when marriage is being discussed in contemporary "evangelical" circles. Number one, people try to tell the woman that submitting to the husband is a form of freedom. And it is, in as much as dying to yourself is a form of freedom. I guess what I'm trying to say is, marriage is slavery. But marriage is a slavery that has the possibility to sanctify because God can use general providence to sanctify His people. That sanctification is freedom because being conformed to the image of God in Christ is freedom.

This applies to the husband too, of course. He is a slave of the wife because her concerns are his concerns. But in that slavery, there is freedom, because the husband is being conformed to the image of God in Christ. Using the modern notion of freedom (autonomous self will) is a losing battle, so better to define freedom as St. Augustine understood it: being conformed to God's will.

Number two, and more explicitly, nobody talks about the mutuality of submission. St. Paul tells the husband to give his body to the wife and vice versa when it comes to sexual relations. St. Paul also talks about mutual submission before he goes and writes the "Table of Duties" in Ephesians. Clearly, there is something else going on here.

7) Greater flexibility is needed for our understanding of what gender is. Mind you, I find the tripartite separation of gender, sex, and orientation to be annoying because it opens the door to identifying as wolfkin. Saying that, a man is still a man if he doesn't like football. A woman is a woman if she play fantasy football religiously. A man is still a man if he likes to look nice. A woman is still a woman if she wears flannel. To steal a line, our pink and blue circles need to be expanded. Perhaps to go further, perhaps pink is not as feminine of a color as we think it is.  Though this requires an understanding of culture that is shallow not only in contemporary "evangelical" discourse, but in contemporary discourse in general.

8) The definition of leadership needs to be ripped from its corporate owners and thrust back into its Christo-centric context. In other words, being type A does not make you a leader. It just makes you, at best, excited, and at worst, an obnoxious human being. Leadership can be silent, behind the scenes, with no words. We must remember how Jesus leads: by serving us. The corollary for how respond to Jesus' leadership? By receiving grace. Pietism, however, reverses this. We talk about doing stuff for God and God receiving our right praise. Apply that to a husband and wife situation and you have abuse. Apply that to the way you see God and you have apostasy.

9) The discussion needs to be limited to marriage. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, to quote a saint of the Internet, need to stop. You cannot say that a woman is not able to a police officer because it robs a man of his masculinity. The Scriptures don't forbid it, therefore, we cannot speak to it. Does that mean that men cannot be nurses? They would not say that, of course, but that's where the logic leads.

10) The doctrine of God's Two Kingdoms needs to be applied to this issue. The way the Church is run is different from the way God runs the world. This is a controversial point, but I find it better to live with mystery and tension than to tell somebody how to live their lives when the issue is not in Scripture.

11) The doctrine of vocation needs to be recovered.

12) The doctrine of the image of God needs to be at the center of this conversation. People like to say that men and women are made in the image of God but nobody likes to talk about what that means. I mean, I think I know what it means due to my reading of Meredith Kline, Louis Berkhof, Michael Horton, and the Westminster Standards. But if you read an earlier post, we must remember this mantra: nobody likes to read dead or old white people.
'
13) An understanding of the eschatological image of the marriage supper of the Lamb needs to be an element of this. If the Church is being married to Christ, and if sex is an image of that consummation, the eschaton informs our ethic.

13) The doctrine of "mind your own business" needs to be recovered. I don't think there is a name for it, but honestly, the way a husband and wife decide to relate is between the Lord and those two people. The pastors are involved in as much as the pastor is responsible for soul care, but even then, the pastor takes a ministerial role (speak what God's word says) and not a magisterial role (defining God's word).

14) The umbrella metaphor needs to be thrown out. It was used by Bill Gothard. It's dead.

15) The Ten Commandments need to be foundational to any discussion as to how a married couple relate to each other. Before a husband is a husband, before a wife is a wife, they are human. The Ten Commandments are a summary of what God requires of a human. It would behoove us to study them.

16) The abuse of men and women by leaders in the "evangelical" community using their gender theory needs to be acknowledged as a failure of said gender theory. "You shall know them by their fruit". I do not think God wants a husband or wife to be abused. However, we read of this abuse and instead of defending the weak, many leaders (TGC and associates) have decided to defend the abusers in the name of "right theology". I would venture to say that said theology is faulty and should be discarded.

17) There must be a return to confessionalism.  Contemporary "evangelical" discourse does not believe in confessionalism, Rather, the pastor acts as a pope more authoritative than the actual Pope, decreeing God's word without any attention to historical trajectory or the wisdom of history. The Reformed confessions speak of marriage of being between a man and wife. The Westminster Larger Catechism and commentaries thereof, while not modern defenses of an egalitarian view of the marriage relationship, are, I would argue, more egalitarian than what contemporary "evangelical" discourse would have us believe.

18) The Trinity cannot be involved in this. I mean, wanting God to be the root of the marriage relationship is a great thought, but St. Paul grounds his understanding of marriage in the Gospel and not in the relations between the persons of the Trinity. The Son does not eternally submit to the Father. He is One with the Father in authority and power. The Son submitted to the Father in the economy of salvation, as under the Law, but does not, in His ontology, submit to the Father. This leads in the direction of Arianism. Read this for an understanding of the issues involved.

19) General revelation needs to be involved in our discussion about marriage. We already do this when we interpret the Bible: we use Hebrew and Greek, we used archaeology, we use historical data. Where are the analyses of the differences between men's and women's brains (if there are any, which I think there generally are). What are the statistic for what men and women generally like to do? What is our epistemology for deciding how relevant this data is?

20) If the Lord's Supper is a participation in the body and blood of Christ, and if it points to the past saving work of God in Christ and to the future eschatology consummation of God in Christ and His people, how does it intersect with marriage? Mind you, if one does not believe in sacramental efficacy, this question is irrelevant.

21) If Baptism is sign and seal of God's grace to us in Jesus Christ, how does it intersect with our theology of marriage? Mind you, if one does not believe in sacramental efficacy, this question is irrelevant.

22) My pastor back home made a wonderful statement about the value of single people in the Church: they are an inbreaking of the eschaton in the Church because when Jesus comes back, there will be no marriage. Therefore, how does this figure into our theology of marriage?

23) "What is the chief end of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him forever." Contemporary "evangelical" discourse (at times) makes a woman's chief end to "Find a husband and pop out kids". The first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism needs to be reckoned with.

24) Because feminism (in all its variants) has influenced the culture, it needs to be talked about, admittedly. However, I must ask, whose feminism? Black feminism? Womanism? Post modern feminism? Is intersectionality relevant to the discussion? Contemporary "evangelical" discourse tends to erase these distinctions and lump it all into one bag called "feminism". Christina Hoff Summers considers herself a feminist and many dislike her. Again, whose feminism? Saying that, it cannot be the controlling issue, and I think there are more important questions to be considered.

25) The discussion seems to center on an upper middle class vision of life. How does a marriage ethic play out when you're poor?

I apologize for the length of the post, but this issue has literally been on my mind for about a year. I have conclusions, but I won't write them. I will say this, though: I think, due to the destruction of any understanding of natural law and classic formulations of Christian theology, a tome needs to be written.

Maybe when I'm fifty I'll write it. But if somebody else writes it, wonderful.

Though when it comes to the every day life, perhaps we should stick to our own gardens and love the people that God's placed in our lives with the best understanding we have of His Word as we cling to Christ in faith for salvation. Because in the end, we won't be married anyway.

Stumbling as I try to love my wife,

-SJG

D I V E R S I T Y

Golly, look at me being hip, talking of a thing people seem to talk about, using a structure of writing that is known to those in the know.

Whatever.

My wife and I found a church, which is great. It's a boring Orthodox Presbyterian Church church. We get the Lord's Supper every week, the preaching is Christo-telic, and the folk are nice. I can't really complain.

Though let me tell you that my wife's boss thought I was lying when I said that there was a denomination that called themselves orthodox. Hey, but aren't we all?

Saying that.

I've been missing my church back home. Specifically, I started missing them when I saw that the General Assembly of said church's denomination (ECO) wanted to push for more diversity. Gendered, social, ethnic, they want it all. They want a diverse leadership to reflect the changing demographics of this country.

"Cool" I thought to myself. Then I rolled my eyes. "So where's the scholarship money?"

Don't get my wrong, my church back home walked the talk. They let me, a rough around the edges Cuban, teach them Sunday school whilst I went to seminary. These people cared about their city. I bet they still do.

Though if I don't see a denominational fund, I'm gonna see it as a bunch of folk talking about how awesome they are because they're open to having a "diverse" leadership. Wow, how righteous.

Saying that, what a denomination does isn't necessarily reflective of a congregation or Presbytery. I'm not a communitarian, after all.

But let me tell you a second story.

All of my wife's co-workers go to Bible churches. What's a Bible church? It's a church that believes in the Bible. With no regard for confessions, creeds, catechisms, or tradition. Don't get wrong, all of my wife's co-workers are wonderful human being. But, why would your friend not like Beyonce? I don't know, I know I don't. I think she's overrated.

But here we are.

Her co-worker invite me to their young adults Bible study. The leader, a nice guy, leads in a very mediocre fashion. I put up with it and answer the question. After all, I'm incredibly snobby. At one point I state that a person is a false teacher because they're making a frazzled woman pray more than need be.

I also stated I was Presbyterian. In a Bible church. A church that rejects denominational labels.

Whatever.

The Bible study leader, he meets with me for coffee. Here I am thinking he wants to use my seminary primed brain to help him. Or not, no, I'm full of myself, after all. Maybe he just wants to get to know me.

And he does.

But.

He then proceeds to tell me that I made people feel uncomfortable because I stated that I was Presbyterian and because I said somebody was a false teacher.

He then tells me that the leaders want diversity, but by me telling that I am Presbyterian, I am inhibiting that diversity even though I am probably the most diverse thing in that church (Seriously, what Latin American wants to be Reformed in this political climate?).

"D I V E R S I T Y"

But no, I hurt peoples' feelings. I was then told to answer questions by stating "according the Bible" and not "according to my tradition". Because, as much as I believe in the perspicuity of Scripture, even St. Peter says St. Paul is hard to read.

I dunno, I thought I was being humble and respecting their practices.

All of that to say.

Do people want diversity? Are people willing to do the hard work of putting up with what they perceive to be as stupid? Do people want to spend their money?

Eh.

Having a beard because I'm insecure,

-SJG

Between Two Hands

As you know (how presumptuous!), my wife is doing a residency with a faith element. Today they discussed faith. Well, they always do that, but something stuck out.

There is a general discontent with the Christianity they grew up with. Some express feeling ahng-st about not sharing the Faith enough. Others wonder why Christians have always done the altar call (hint: they haven't). One person was especially upset that non-Christians are seen as "the Other".

This leaves me in a strange place.

On the one hand, I didn't grow up in church per se. I grew up a nominal Catholic, which I consider a blessing in disguise. I wasn't exposed to American religion when I was young and I had the pleasure of listening to all the "pagan" music a dial up connection could afford a young person. My soundtrack was Pink Floyd, Rush, Yes, Cream, and Muse. My friends listened to Mike Jones, Paul Wall, and early Kanye West. Also R. Kelly.

On the other hand, I am what sociologists would consider a conservative Christian. I don't have much hope for any authority (read: government) figure fixing anything, I affirm the Nicene Creed, I have "traditional" sexual values, and I'd like to be a Presbyterian minister one day. What are Presbyterians famous for? Not for outward displays of emotions, but we burned a guy in Geneva once. We're Scottish, but whatever.

As a result, I have no problem hanging out with "pagans", because I grew up one. Yet I was surrounded by enough sacred imagery to know what Christianity might have been in the past. And when I did encounter American religion's claim on me, I did what any historian does: ad fontes. And what do you know, the Church in the States are Protestants without a Reformation, to steal a quote. Let me tell you, you haven't lived until you're "that guy" in a ministry setting. I suppose I have nobody to blame but myself, but I can't stand people being wrong.

At the same time, I'm still a Christian. I will have bad motivations imputed to me. I will be seen as an anti-freedom, poor hating, racist bigot. Maybe even sexist. Mind you, I don't think I'm any of those things, nor am I mad about this. It's part of the story of the Church in the States. It's my fault for saying "I want this to be my story".

It's even more awkward when you empathize more with dead Europeans than folk your age and ethnicity.

Mind you, I think there is a solution for the ahng-sty evangelical. Give up your faith and join a tradition that takes the Bible and history seriously, warts and all. But that's for another time.

Judging American coffee,

-SJG

Sergio and the Confusing Techni-theo Earthchurch

Dolly Parton not included.

My wife and I are on the hunt for a church. We haven't found one yet, though we'd like to. We've visited three so far, and for all the problems that the one back home had (like all churches), it does leave a hankering for home.

We visited three.

I guess I should tell you.

The first was a Dutch Reformed church. So Dutch that the minister had a Dutch name. We sang Psalms. The sermon was on Exodus. Typological. Decent. My wife died on the inside looking at the sad architecture but we could adjust.

There was a problem of course, well, two. Number one it's far, though I suppose that's not excuse. Number two, there was a severe lack of understanding of the concept of "non-Christian" in the congregation.

That's not to say the congregants weren't nice. They were. But rather, some could not believe how "pagan" the center of the city was, nor could some folk have any compassion on a person who voted for Obama. And I'm an anarchist.

I just. I just wouldn't feel safe inviting somebody who is not a Christian there.

Eh.

The second was an independent fundamentalist Baptist church. Some people do drugs when they visit a new city, me? I go to churches that I would never join but hey the girl we met at the coffee shop was nice enough.

We sat in on a class about Bible interpretation. It was mostly right. The problem was, the people were so focused on seeing what the Bible tells them to do that they forget all the stuff that God did. You know, part the Red Sea, lead Joshua into the promised Land, die on the cross- woops.

Let me tell you, you haven't lived until you've taught the difference between Law and Gospel, but I mean, who does that right? Law and Grace? What is this, the Reformation? What is my life?

No typology.

The third was an Anglican church. ACNA. Evangelical, catholic, and charismatic. I don't know how those three hold together but the Presbyterian church we wanted to visit (okay I wanted to visit) was thirty minutes away and the road was covered in snow. Better to drive five minutes in the snow and receive the Lord's Supper than die.

And hey, the homily wasn't half bad. Sure they played Oceans for seven minutes (ugh) but I could look past that. It was the wedding at Cana and the priest talked about the eschatological wedding feast and all sorts of Johannine themes. Plus, the liturgy was in the tradition of the Book of Common Prayer, which I can live with.

Typology.

I guess I should include that we felt like we could invite normal folk over.

But what is it with Presbyterian churches being in the suburbs? And why are hipsters attracted to Baptistic fundamntalism? Seriously I saw so many girls with bowl cuts and bangs and they could be out there having bowl cuts and bangs. Plus the guys' mustaches were so well trimmed. Ayyy.

We are making friends, though. Or at the very least I'm not always cooped up in bed. But if there's one thing I've noticed in all of this, it's the fact that there seems to be a church for every niche.

Though for the love of God I wish people would stop recommending me to the Acts29 church near my house. Just because I'm a Calvinist doesn't mean I like Acts29. Gawsh. Rude.

Plaid on the mind,

-SJG

Stupid Observations on a Road Trip

Below is a list of observations and thoughts I made and had while driving and riding to Kansas City MO:

-The South reminds me of Miami in as much as family is valued and there is a warmness to the culture, minus the Miami aversion to strangers.

-The South, like much of Latin America, has a complex history with good and bad. I guess I'm too far removed from the issues to have a passionate opinion either way.

-Cracker Barrel has excellent customer service.

-Mountains are great.

-I've yet to experience culture shock. The part of Kansas City MO we're at is hipster-ridden and things are familiar to me. There are coffee shops and vegan restaurants. We have those in Miami. Men have beards. I have a beard. The "hicks" were very kind to me. Perhaps the Americans have exported more culture than they think they have. Whatever man, I like Starbucks.

-Eeeevangelicalism is just as annoying on the Left just like on the Right. Nothing kills the vibe like a theology of glory.

-My wife is wonderful.

-Bickering is to be expected.

-Too many churches in the South.

-Many churches in the South are Baptist. Where are the Reformed churches in small towns? Perhaps we need to get the missionary impulse and minister in the small towns.

-Cuban coffee is superior to all coffee.

-I miss rice and beans.

-Being Presbyterian is almost like being Amish, in the sense that nobody knows what that means other than "Muh Calvin!"

-The doctrine of Two-Kingdoms is good at reconciling issues of faith and vocation.

-Most people don't know what the doctrine of Two-Kingdoms is.

-Those that do (usually) critique it for being quietist. I like it because I don't want to be a legalist about Christian worldview.

-I hate putting my opinions on the Internet because there is no way to provide nuance outside of providing a book.

-People don't like to read books.

-People don't like to read books by theologians.

-People don't like to read books by Reformed theologians.

-People that claim to reject historic Protestantism usually aren't rejecting historic Protestantism, but usually, eeeevangelicalism.

-I'm horribly insecure.

-Winter's fun because I look good in winter clothes.

That's it.

I'm sorry,

-SJG

What is this (a) Blog?

Who I am isn't important, if you're here, it's due to Divine Providence.

And if anything, I can tell you more about myself later.

What's more important is that you know what this foolishness is.

This foolishness is a blog. But what is a blog? A blog is a place where un-refined vomit is thrown onto a page, and that's being generous. At least it can be refined. Most likely, however, this is a place where my musings on existence will be posted for my friends (and you, mostly anonymous reader) to read.

In other words, mediocrity.

If you are expecting a paradigm shift, I bid you to the Great Tradition.

If you are expecting tips for living, you can watch reality television and do the opposite.

If you are expecting a solution to social ills, why aren't you giving my wife money to paint?

Saying/writing that, welcome to my obscure corner of the Internet. Ignore the mess.

From me to you,

-SJG