Fast forward to present day.  Having recently completed the most engaging, life-changing, and eye-opening seminary class I’ve ever had the privilige of taking–on church history no less–I feel a need to clear the air, if for no other reason than that my children will not suffer from the religious bigotry that I once did.

First, we Protestants have much more in common with Catholics than we realize.  I grew up believing that the 2,000 or so years between the Book of Revelation and my birth held nothing of importance.  I now know that much of what we stand on in our theology and practice today comes from Catholic roots.  For much of the history of the church there was no Protestant/Catholic distinction.  Study the early church and you will feel very much at home with other Catholics.  We believe many of the same things.

Second, we Protestants would do well to learn from Catholics; there are many ways in which they believe more truly and practice more faithfully than us. Every Protestant has made a “confession” joke at one point or another.  But how many Protestants ever confess anything at all?  I often wonder if it’s the Protestants who are showing up for church on Sunday and then sinning on Monday, not the Catholics.  Further, the Catholic Church has made service to the poor a benchmark of its ministry for quite a long time.  Sadly, it’s only a recent phenomenon that the Evangelical movement has broadly taken this type of ministry seriously.  Their faith is often very deep, rich, and willing to admit that they don’t know all of the answers.  There is a place for mystery in their faith that most of us know nothing about.

Finally, I wonder if we are bigoted concerning Catholicism because we don’t want to understand (or try to understand) their perspective on Scripture.  One of the main problems with the idea of ‘good, solid, evangelical Christianity’ is the bubble we live in.  We think that being ‘solid’ means choosing a ‘safe’ environment, something like an incubator, all warm and cozy and affirming, in which to develop our own beliefs and practices.  But this is absolute nonsense.  I’m talking about testing and confrontation on the ideological level.  We need to have our ideas challenged, too.  We need to have the categories we use to think about God broken open from time to time. We need to have our blind spots exposed.  This will only happen if we’re willing to enter environments that are less like incubators and more like testing grounds. It’s in the breaking and remaking that happens in such a setting that we find our eyes opened to see again.

I often wonder if the Protestant church of the new millennium has become the Catholic church of the Reformation.  If Martin Luther were alive today, would he be nailing a list of thesis to the door of the church you (or even I) attend?

My Pastor has been talking a lot lately about the idea of a “real church” and what that looks like.  I am more convinced than ever that it would not necessarily have the word Protestant attached to it any more than it would the word Catholic. It would not necessarily be reformed or free, and certainly not postmodern or missional.

I’m not advocating weak theology or even tolerance.  I am advocating knowledge and learning, study and openness, discussion and an end to religious bigotry.  I am advocating a return to study about the history of the church lest we enter a second Dark Ages.

portions of the content for this article have been re-purposed from “Why I Chose Notre Dame” at commonjason.com, a discussion of an evangelical student’s decision to do Master’s work at a catholic institution.

Sir McKellen is gay and though nearly 70 years old, he did not come out until age 49.  It would seem, there is a bit of unresolved anger there because in a recent interview with Details magazine he had this to say:

Details: Is it true that when you stay at hotels you tear out the Bible page that condemns homosexuality?

Ian McKellen: I do, absolutely. I’m not proudly defacing the book, but it’s a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible. And I’m not really the first: I got delivered a package of 40 of those pages — Leviticus 18:22 — that had been torn out by a married couple I know. They put them on a bit of string so that I could hang it up in the bathroom.

The New York Times alluded to it back in ’03 when it said:

”I can’t wait to get into bed,” he said. One aspect of his hotel room already felt like home: he had ripped the anti-gay passage Leviticus 18:22 from the Gideon Bible, a ritual that lets him sleep more soundly.

You may this post is about homosexuality, but you’d be wrong.  There is something more important in the words and ideas of Sir McKellen.  Though the reason may be unique, the practice of ‘editing’ the Bible to suite ones fancy is not necessarily a new one.  Many have done similarly, perhaps most notably, Thomas Jefferson himself.  TheBoston Globe reports:

Thomas Jefferson set to work with scissors, snipping out every miracle and inconsistency he could find in the New Testament Gospels.  Then, using a cut-and-paste technique, he reassembled the excerpts into what he believed was a more coherent narrative.  He called the book “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.” Friends dubbed it “The Jefferson Bible.”  In Jefferson’s version of the Gospels, Jesus is still wrapped in swaddling clothes after his birth in Bethlehem.  But there’s no angel telling shepherds watching their flocks by night that a savior has been born.  Jefferson leaves in Jesus’ crucifixion, but ends the text with his burial, not the resurrection.

Whether you, like Sir McKellen, disagree with the Bible’s moral code for righteous living or, like President Jefferson, seek to remove the portions that you deem untrue, you must stand in awe of any man who would render his own personal judgment on a work that claims infallibility based on transcendent truth.

Jefferson wrote: “To the corruption of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.”  You gotta admit, it takes large cojones to redact the words and life of Christ himself as told by those closest to him.

Who knew the American Anglicans were so progressive compared to those across the pond?

The TEC was formalising the schism it initiated six years ago when it consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the worldwide Anglican leadership’s unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the [Anglican/Episcopal Church] at its deepest level”.  In the words of the UK Bishops, the American Episcopal church has chosen to “walk apart”.

Interestingly, the American Bishops indicate a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Church fellowship worldwide.  In their words: “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” which the UK leadership calls “cynical double-think”.

The UK Bishops fire back by saying that church tradition (within all faiths) concerning sexual issues has always been counter-cultural as well as counter-intuitive.  Our supposedly selfish genes crave a variety of sexual possibilities.  But Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse. This is not (as is frequently suggested) an arbitrary rule, dualistic in overtone and killjoy in intention. It is a deep structural reflection of the belief in a creator God who has entered into covenant both with his creation and with his people (who carry forward his purposes for that creation).

The UK Bishops state quite emphatically that paganism ancient and modern has always found this ethic, and this belief, ridiculous and incredible.  But the biblical witness is scarcely confined, as many often suggest, to a few verses in St Paul’s writings.  Jesus’s own stern denunciation of sexual immorality would certainly have carried, to his hearers, a clear implied rejection of all sexual behaviour outside heterosexual monogamy. This isn’t a matter of “private response to Scripture” but of the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition.

It doesn’t stop at theology though, the bishops across the pond also consider this issue to be a practical one.  They say the appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question.  Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace.  The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls.  Justice never means “treating everybody the same way”, but “treating people appropriately”, which involves making distinctions between different people and situations.  Justice has never meant “the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire”.

Still, unwilling to stop at that, they jump into the cultural fray as well.  They insist that such a novel usage would also raise the further question of identity.  In their estimation it is a very recent innovation to consider sexual preferences as a marker of “identity” parallel to, say, being male or female, English or African, rich or poor.  They contend that within the “gay community” much postmodern reflection has turned away from “identity” as a modernist fiction and so now we simply “construct” ourselves from day to day.

Further, the British bishops insist on the distinction between inclination and desire on the one hand and activity on the other.  They admit that we all have all kinds of deep-rooted inclinations and desires.  The question is, what shall we do with them?  Referring to one of the great Prayer Books, they remind the US church that we should be in the habit of asking God that we may “love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise”.  That is always tough, for all of us.   Much easier to ask God to command what we already love, and promise what we already desire.

And with much grace, the leadership of the UK Anglican church notes that they should not forget the Episcopalian bishops, who, doggedly loyal to their own Church, and to the expressed mind of the wider Anglican community, voted against the current resolution.  Nor should be forgotten, in their words, the many parishes and worshippers who take the same stance.

What are your thoughts??

large portions excerpted/edited from: London Times Online

One of the main tenets of postmodernism is the return to old things–ancient things– such as symbols, relics, stained glass, and sculpture.  In a word, things that are concrete.  What was old is new again.  So it should not come as no suprise that my fellow postmodern ministers and their congregants are finding value in the very things that the generation that went before tried so hard to leave behind.  The baby boomers struggled to detach themselves from the moorings and trappings of religion… and in many ways they succeeded.  Look at the culture around us.  But for better or worse, my generation is looking for something foundational, missional, or otherwise connected.

Calvinism seems to gaining a new momentum in popularity among these young protestants.

Time Magazine recently lauded “New Calvinism” as third on a list of 10 ideas changing the world right now.  It initially seemed a bit odd in my mind to call Calvinism ‘new’.  In fact, just this month the venerable John Calvin celebrated his 500th birthday.  But then I discovered the ideology behind the shift and it makes a little more sense (but only a little).  As stated by Mark Driscoll:

1. Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
2. Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
3. Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
4. Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.

In Mark Driscoll’s words, What is “new” about the “new Calvinism?”  The 2 things that separate the new Calvinism from the old Calvinism is that the new Calvinists still believe that it is their responsibility to win every person to Jesus and the new Calvinists are not angry about Calvinism.

… Interesting, but more semantics than substance from my perspective.

So Calvinism.

Calvinism is, in effect, the doctrine of election (or predestination).  It stresses the sovereignty of God over all things in life.  Calvinism stresses the complete ruin of humanity’s ethical nature against a backdrop of the sovereign grace of God in salvation.  It teaches that fallen humanity is morally and spiritually unable to follow God or escape their condemnation before him and that only by divine intervention in which God must change their unwilling hearts can people be turned from rebellion to willing obedience.  This plays out in 5 ways:

1. Total Depravity - Every person born into this world is enslaved to the service of sin.  We are not by nature inclined to love God with our heart, mind, or strength but rather are inclined to serve our own interests and reject the rule of God.  I would not choose God unless He first chooses me.
2. Unconditional Election – Those whom God saves is not based on their own merit or virtue, but is solely an act of his mercy.
3. Limited Atonement – Christ’s work on the cross was sufficient for all and efficient for the elect.
4. Irresistible Grace - when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved.
5. Perseverance of the Saints - since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return.

Concerning the finer theological points of Calvinism, I’ll refer you to Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, who has this to say on the finer points:

Election does not mean that God merely knew who would believe and on that basis elected them. This really would not be election or “choice.” God would not be choosing us; rather, we would be choosing him and he would simply know about it. (Further, the devil, a creature, would be put on a plane equal to God.) The consistent testimony of scripture is that God is the one doing the choosing, not us. [Romans 9:6-21; Ephesians 1:4; 1 Thessalonians 1:4].

Election does not obliterate human responsibility. Each person is held responsible before Almighty God as to what they will do with his Son. [Ephesians 2:3].

Election is necessary because we are totally depraved sinners. In other words, we would not choose God unless he first chose us. Non-believers are portrayed as unable to do or think anything which would move them one step closer to God. There is nothing they can do or say which would please God.  [Romans 3:10-23; Ephesians 4:17-19]. In fact, non-believers are spiritually dead until the Spirit of God calls them: that is, they are unresponsive to anything outside the realm of sin (Ephesians 2:1-3).

The process of election, as worked out in our own lives, does not violate our will. That is, the doctrine of “irresistible grace” does not mean “divine coercion,” as if God bullies you into submission to do his will. Rather, it is compelling persuasion. The devil has blinded the eyes of the world (2 Cor. 4:4) and once our eyes have been enlightened by the Spirit of God, we see clearly what God has done for us. Further, if grace were resistible, this would mean that the person who can resist God’s will is a strong and powerful individual and those who can’t (and thus those who get saved) are weaklings. That is not the biblical picture.

The means of election is always through human agency. That is, God uses other believers to communicate the gospel to the lost. Cf. Romans 10:14-17. Therefore, we cannot excuse ourselves from sharing the gospel by saying, “If he’s elect, God’s going to save him anyway. He doesn’t need me to do the job.” Consequently, the doctrine of election should motivate us to share the gospel–not out of fear but because we want to be used by God to do his will.

Election does not contradict any of God’s attributes and, in fact, is a direct outgrowth of his love (Eph. 1:4-5).

Election is not just to salvation, but to sanctification and glorification. [Eph. 1:4-5; Rom. 8:28-30]. In other words, those whom God has chosen are chosen not just to be saved, but also to be sanctified.

The question of whether God is fair or not in choosing some but not others diminishes how great our salvation is–and how much our sin permeates us. If God were fair, we would all go to hell. If he saves one person, he is infinitely merciful. Actually, three basic questions arise when discussing election: Is God fair? Doesn’t this make us robots? Why should I evangelize? All three questions are answered in Romans 9-11, the great passage in the Bible which deals with this doctrine. Romans 9 answers the question of our choice, Rom 10 answers the question of the need for evangelism, and Rom 11 answers the question of God’s fairness. It should be noted as well that Paul’s theology here is not in a vacuum; he begins (vv 1-3) by almost wishing that he could go to hell if it would mean that just one of his Jewish brothers would get saved!

Many folks want to seek a balance between God’s sovereignty and human free will. A balance needs to be sought, but this is not the place. Nowhere do we read in the Bible that God is not sovereign over our wills. Further, we have the explicit testimony of Romans 9 to the opposite effect. As well, there is an inherent imbalance between a creature’s will and the Creator’s will. What right do we have to claim that these two are equal?

The doctrine of election is analogous to that of inspiration. God has inspired the very words of scripture (2 Tim 3:16), yet his modus operandi was not verbal dictation. Isaiah was the Shakespeare of his day; Amos was the Mark Twain. Both had widely divergent vocabularies and styles of writing, yet what each wrote was inspired by God. Luke’s style of writing and Greek syntax is quite different from John’s, yet both penned the Word of God. We read in 2 Peter 1:20-21 that no prophet originated his own prophecies, but was borne along by the Holy Spirit: “1:20 Above all, you do well if you recognize this: no prophecy of Scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, 1:21 for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (NET Bible). Thus, we are presented with a mystery: Each biblical writer wrote the very words of God, yet each exercised his own personality and will in the process. The message originated with God, yet the process involved human volition. The miracle of inspiration, as Lewis Sperry Chafer long ago noted, is that God did not violate anyone’s personality, yet what was written was exactly what he wanted to say. This finds parallels with election. The mystery of election is that God can choose unconditionally, yet our wills are not coerced. We are persuaded by the Holy Spirit to believe. Further, we have the sense of free will in the process, just as the biblical authors did. That is, the biblical authors did not always know that they were even writing scripture, even though God was directing their thoughts.

Summary: the biblical doctrine of election is that it is unconditional, irresistible, and irrevocable. All this to the glory of God–without in any way diminishing the dignity or responsibility of man. To put this another way: A large part of maturing in the faith is this: we each need to make the progressively Copernican discovery encapsuled in the words, “I am not the center of the universe.” Or, as John the Baptist put it, “That he might increase and I might decrease.”

Happy Birthday John… from all of us.

Calvinism is back, and not just musically. John Calvin’s 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism’s buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism’s latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination’s logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time’s dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.

Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation’s other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don’t have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by “glorifying” him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism’s loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.

No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don’t operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, “everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world” — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle’s pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom’s hottest links.

Like the Calvinists, more moderate Evangelicals are exploring cures for the movement’s doctrinal drift, but can’t offer the same blanket assurance. “A lot of young people grew up in a culture of brokenness, divorce, drugs or sexual temptation,” says Collin Hansen, author of Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists. “They have plenty of friends: what they need is a God.” Mohler says, “The moment someone begins to define God’s [being or actions] biblically, that person is drawn to conclusions that are traditionally classified as Calvinist.” Of course, that presumption of inevitability has drawn accusations of arrogance and divisiveness since Calvin’s time. Indeed, some of today’s enthusiasts imply that non-Calvinists may actually not be Christians. Skirmishes among the Southern Baptists (who have a competing non-Calvinist camp) and online “flame wars” bode badly.

Calvin’s 500th birthday will be this July. It will be interesting to see whether Calvin’s latest legacy will be classic Protestant backbiting or whether, during these hard times, more Christians searching for security will submit their wills to the austerely demanding God of their country’s infancy.

[ taken from Time magazine, "10 Ideas Changing the World Now", #3. The New Calvinism ]

RALEIGH, N.C. — What was supposed to be an honor — a cover story about a group of successful women pastors — has instead been tarnished for a Durham non-denominational church leader.

Sheryl Brady, the 48-year-old pastor of The River Church, was featured among four other women pastors on the cover of Gospel Today, a Christian lifestyle publication based in Atlanta. The article, titled “Women Pastors: Breaking the Glass Ceiling,” was pulled from the shelves of LifeWay Christian stores because it upset the owner — the Southern Baptist Convention.

The convention believes the position of pastor is reserved for men. “I respect the theological debate about women in leadership and the Southern Baptist Convention’s decision to disagree, but to deny Gospel Today the right to freedom of the press to cover it and discuss it is alarming,” said Brady, who preaches in the Pentecostal tradition of prophesy, healing and speaking in tongues.

The Detroit native and her husband, Bishop Joby Brady, travel widely on the Christian conference and seminar circuit and grabbed the attention of Gospel Today founder and publisher Teresa Hairston.

Hairston said she was impressed with Brady’s dynamism.

“I was absolutely shocked,” said Hairston, when she learned last month that LifeWay and its 150 stores nationwide was pulling the September/October edition.

The chain is a major distributor, but the magazine is still widely available elsewhere.

A spokesman for LifeWay Christian Resources based in Nashville, Tenn., said the magazine story was contrary to the Southern Baptist denomination’s statement of faith and therefore stores were asked not to promote it. Customers may ask for a copy of it at the counter, said spokesman Rob Phillips.

Having been a member of a SBC congregation in Texas, as well as having been ordained in the denomination, this story is interesting to me.  I do know where I stand on women in the senior pastorate… but I am not sure where I stand on censorship.  Or, perhaps I do.  Do you?

Gay.

Two words that most of us in the church community would never use in the same sentence… unless also using the word ‘hell’ and/or ‘abomination’.

Recently, California’s Supreme Court declared gay couples in the nation’s biggest state can marry. most of the church-goers I know would see this as a terrible thing. But I ran across a blog over at xxxchurch.com that made me think twice so i wanted to post it here… not because it reflects my personal opinion, but because it made me stop and think:

“So many people are up in arms over this because of this ruling. My thoughts are that the people that say that this is a huge hit for traditional marriage…I don’t agree. This does not take away anyones right to have a traditional marriage. This does not mean traditional marriage is facing a threat. This gives those that want to have a same sex marriage the same rights those that want to have a traditional marriage already have. I don’t believe this will have any effect on traditional marriage. Those that want to have a traditional marriage still are able to do that. I think gay marriage goes against what the Bible says about marriage but at the end of the day I believe that they should have the same rights.

“Romans 12:2 says: Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

“People that don’t know the lord have no reason for living like those that belong to the Lord. We are suppose to stand out and live our lives as God has called us. If we believe that God has created marriage to be between a man and a women then believers need to be a test to that. Our marriages are not in danger because people that don’t believe like us want to get married.

“Barna studies says Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.

“Christian traditional marriage is in danger because Christians are not living a life that God has called us to live.

WOW. That last line was what really got me thinking. Is that really true? could it really be the Church itself that has put marriage in jeopardy?? Talk about a statement that forces you to take the plank out of your own eye before you remove the speck of dust from someone else’s!

Were that the end of the matter, I would have moved on and forgotten about it. But this week I was confronted with another article about gay students and Cedarville University, my alma mater. Written originally for print in the student newspaper, it was never published… but eventually was leaked.

This article really hit close to home as I actually knew a couple of people struggling with homosexuality during my time at Cedarville. It was tough for them because there was nowhere to turn for help.  This article reminds me that so often as Christians we speak out of both sides of our mouth. We say that we divorce the sin from the sinner, but never in actuality do anything of the sort.  And beyond that, we are so often more interested in beating people over the head with doctrine than actually helping them walk as fully devoted followers of Christ.

I never truly understood the struggle of being gay until I became friends with a few people who suffer daily with the fight between the flesh and the spirit (Romans 7).

And yet still, this subject is both taboo.  i am proud to attend a church that confronts the issue and is truly interested in helping those caught in the struggle.  I hope more churches will take the lead and go even further.

I think at some point we have to admit to ourselves that this really is a problem that is not going to go away. Tons of people in our families, schools, and yes, congregations, struggle with this issue. As someone who has seen the pain lived out in other’s lives, the church in general really needs a new approach to communicating our stance on homosexuality.  But more importantly, we need a better method of helping those who struggle with homosexuality but also desire to live a life in harmony with God.

To those who are caught in a struggle between holiness and the desires of the flesh… don’t give up on God, the church, your school, or Christianity.  Hope may be just around the corner.

The article, for what it’s worth:

“Last year, Soulforce Equality Rider Vince Pancucci challenged Cedarville University to ask how her thoughts, words, actions, and biases harm her homosexual brothers and sisters.

“Pancucci joined Michael “Enku” Ide to illustrate the spiritual violence that well-intended Christians so often inflict on the lives of homosexual men and women.

“Ide explained how hostility and narrow-mindedness drove him away from the Church, and only the authentic, unconditional love of a handful of Christians he later met brought him back. “Their faith was alive,” Ide said, “you could see it in their lives” Let us, almost a year later, accept Pancucci’s challenge. In what ways do our thoughts, words, actions, and biases harm our homosexual brothers and sisters?

“To answer this question, we turn to Ricky Smith and his Cedarville experience. Ricky was an enthusiastic, highly involved Cedarville student. He was a small group leader and class officer. As a communication major, Ricky enjoyed working for Resound Radio. He led a ministry and poured himself into the lives if his friends. Like most students, Ricky came to Cedarville nervous yet excited about his college experience.

“Ricky is also gay.

“Despite his enthusiasm about Cedarville, Ricky transferred to Ohio State University last semester; Being a homosexual student at Cedarville University, explains Ricky, had grown too difficult. Ricky’s story begins early his freshman year.

““Freshman year,” explains Ricky via a telephone interview, “the deans had reason to believe I was gay.” Ricky met with a Dean Smith, Associate Dean of Profile edit Friends Inbox home reason to believe I was gay.” Ricky met with a Dean Smith, Associate Dean of Campus Life, and together the two discussed homosexuality at Cedarville. “Dean Smith told me that many people at Cedarville struggle with homosexuality. He said there’s at least one homosexual guy in every hall.” Pursuant to Dean Smith’s suggestion, Ricky attended counseling for two semesters. “Nothing he said, nothing he gave me to read, and no one he asked me to talk to made me change at all. I quit counseling after freshman year.”

“Despite leaving counseling, however, Ricky desired, as he always had, to overcome his homosexuality. It wasn’t until April’s Soulforce visit that Ricky’s approach to his sexuality began to change. “When I heard that Soulforce was visiting, I decided to read a lot of their material. After praying about it, I sincerely believed that nothing was wrong with me. The problem was with Cedarville.” Despite his skepticism towards Cedarville, however, Ricky did not intend to leave. It wasn’t until last semester—when Ricky’s church and family learned about his sexuality—that things began to change.

“”When my pastor called, he labeled me a filthy sodomite and questioned my salvation.” The following week, Ricky’s church voted him out. A week later, Ricky withdrew from Cedarville. Today, Ricky is a junior communication major at Ohio State University. Within his first few weeks at OSU, Ricky joined the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group raising awareness about homosexuality.

“Looking back on his Cedarville experience, Ricky is disappointed at the manner in which students treated both him and the question of homosexuality. “People emailed me explaining that they have homosexual friends that are sleeping around, going to clubs, getting AIDS, and dying alone. They told me that no one goes to their funerals. These are the stories people told to ‘quote’ change me.”

“”One girl,” explains Ricky, “suggested that, to overcome my homosexuality, I try to act more masculine. The ignorance floored me.” Ricky further explains that his hallmates talked about him and his sexuality behind his back. “Everyone talked about me,” says Ricky, “but no one talked to me.”

“Ricky suggests that [gay] students at Cedarville begin by speaking with someone they trust. “You shouldn’t have to be alone,” says Ricky.

If you read about Michelangelo’s famous statue, David, you will find a sordid history.  When the Cathedral of Florence commissioned it, they could never have imagined what would unfold from there.  They hired the best sculpture they could find, a proven artist, and the work began. 

A chip here. A drill there.  Even a hole gouged in the middle between the legs…. and then nothing.

The artist stopped working on it.  Some say because the marble was too difficult to work with, others posit other reasons.  The church hired another artist who tried to complete the work but failed.  Again, another artist was hired.  He too failed.

The 18-foot slab of marble stood alone and neglected in the cathedral yard for 25 years.  Abandoned by three previous artisans, it bore the scars of their failed attempts to create beauty.  It sat alone, in brokenness.

Time and weather took its toll, diminishing the marble in both quality and stature.

Finally the cathedral, tired of the giant piece of marble that sat useless for decades, shopped the project around to a slew of new master craftsmen.  None would touch it, not even Da Vinci himself.  Only in a young, yet unproven sculptor, did they find their savior.

Michelangelo acquired the piece of marble at the age of 26.  None could have imagined the lasting impression this piece of marble was to have. 

First, Michelangelo built a shed around it.  Then he moved in.  Before he ever touched it with a mallet or chisel, he chose to live with his work.  For three years he struggled with the broken piece of marble.  Working around its faults to slowly, but surely, bring forth the image of a man after God’s own heart, David.

Even today, one can still see the flaws in the statue Michelangelo himself touch over 500 years ago.  One can still see the imperfections in the marble.  one can still see the drill holes, cracks, and problems created by the craftsmen who tried and failed to bring life from the marble.

This is an amazing image of what God did in David’s own life as well as what Christ still does in our lives.  Out of our brokenness, He brings beauty… art.  And only out of our brokenness can He sculpt us into a magnificent creation.

So I am seeing myself today as something of a David… carrying my own chip-marks, drill holes, and brokenness…. but out of it seeing the beauty of God’s own handiwork in the story of my life.

So, we’ve all heard this verse, ad nauseum, and I’ve even studied it multiple times in school… but I am not sure it ever really sunk in or resonated with me.  This verse is written to the exiles on behalf of God during a 70-year discipline.  This promise was not going to be fulfilled the day after it was given.  Earlier in the chapter God told them to prepare for the long haul: plow, build, marry, bury. Get comfortable, but remember Me.

Jeremiah 29:12 – “Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you,” declares the LORD, “and will bring you back from captivity.  I will gather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you,” declares the LORD, “and will bring you back to the place from which I carried you into exile.”

And these verses are SO much more powerful than the first.  Frankly, Jeremiah 29:11 was not written to us.  It was written to the Jewish Nation… a specific promise, for a specific time, for a specific people group.  Obviously, when taken in the context of Scripture it definitately can be applied more broadly.  But it cannot stand on it’s own in that respect.  In contrast, verses 12-14 are in my estimation more applicable to all people, of all nations, of all generations.

I think that it is important that the Lord will be found… when we seek with all our heart.

He will listen… when we call and pray.

We will be brought back from captivity… when He is found.

We will be carried out of the captivity… which HE carried us into.

As long as certain pleasures are permitted, it’s our obligation to fully enjoy them.