For years and years I've wondered why so many Christians have an aversion to -- even a fear of -- certain types of technology -- technology they apparently believe is either directly connected to, or will somehow become used as the eschatological mark of the beast; the sign of the coming Antichrist (and of course, any real Christian in their right mind would stay as far away from such things as possible).

If for some reason, you've never encountered this phenomenon, trying going here or perhaps here . And if you're really brave, try here and here.

In many ways, this sort of thing feels like "Christian theology meets Coast-to-Coast!"

Is this apprehension/fear of technology simply a manifestation of our feeble human efforts to "figure out" the eschatological/apocalyptic predictions of scripture? Or is there some substance to all this that I'm just not seeing?

The day started out with our SECOND bear encounter -- another "teenage" bear, this time chased up a tree by a couple local dogs! The picture quality on the left may not be so great, but all this was quite the shock to my wife -- when the bear scrambled up that tree -- which was only 3 feet away from her as she was walking along the second-story walk-way at the condo complex we're staying at. Whew! How would you feel if a bear startled you like that, being as close to you as that? Well fortunately, I was there with camera in hand (and even captured a quick mpeg of it all)! Well, needless to say, it took awhile for her adrenaline levels to come down, but we were eventually ready to hit the road for our next adventure.

The Olivers then joined us for a spectacular hike in the Ansel Adams Wilderness -- this time to "Rainbow Falls" (pictured). What a beautiful day for hiking and... for discussing eschatology (Benjy and I thoroughly enjoyed "getting into it"). Sweet! The weather cooperated with us (afternoon thunderstorms are common in the Sierras this time of year), and after the hike we enjoyed a delicious lunch at the historic Reds Meadow Cafe.

And it was right outside the cafe, where we met Amy and Geoff (that's them pictured with me on the left) -- an awesome couple who are hiking the ENTIRE Pacific Coast Trail (which I've mentioned in a previous post, and which runs from Mexico to Canada). They've been on the trail for about two months! They are certainly not your "ordinary" hikers -- it's very rare to meet people as ambitious and successful as Amy and Geoff. If you'd like, you can check out their website and trail journal by going here.

So how kewl is this?!

Yep, it's Benjy and me surfing in Mammoth Lakes, CA -- internet surfing outside of the Old New York Deli & Bagel Company! And can you blame us? They have FREE wireless internet here! Yippee!

We enjoyed a cafe mocha inside, until they closed-- then moved to the outside seating and still enjoyed the connection (they never turn it off, they told us). We'll be back.

Ours is a culture obsessed with blame. And it's everywhere -- in our schools, our courts, our homes, and yes... in our churches. The overly litiguous nature of American society in particular is one of the many ways we "practice" blame and even seek to benefit from it financially.

Now, I would want to immediately distinquish here between the pursuit of justice and the self-absolving transference of blame. It's this later type of blame that troubles me most -- the blaming of individuals or groups or institutions or entities RATHER THAN the thoughtful self-examination and owning of personal responsibility when called for. Observing an inappropriate "victim-mentality" in people does not in any way suggest that "victimization" isn't a serious societal problem. It's a both-and reality. I believe the same is true with blame -- the fact that there is a place for the appropriate assigning of blame in no way excuses the self-absolving, immoral blame that seems to ever be on the increase in popular culture.

So who or what is to blame for our blame? I suppose that there are plenty of candidates for that distinction, but I'm convinced it's that damnable individualism again.

Here's how our overly individualistic, consumeristic culture expresses itself within the church: if the church I'm attending doesn't "deliver the goods" (according to my standard, by the way) I just leave, making sure that I blame them for their inadequacies. We carry around a private set of expections, never sharing them with others but always expecting everyone to "just know" how they should go about meeting our needs. When they don't, we get mad and leave. When asked why we didn't speak up or saying anything -- it's easiest for us to simply blame the other person as "unapproachable." We thereby make them wrong and absolve ourselves completely.

I see this sort of thing so frequently and in so many places, that I often just shake my head in disbelief.

We are a people, handicapped in our abilities to admit personal culpability or see past our self-serving interests and desires. The addage is oh so true: we judge others by their actions and ourselves by our motives. We're blind to our inconsistencies. Our blaming blinds us to what's real, and perhaps more importantly -- our blaming prevents us from experiencing the dynamics of authentic community. True community, true koinonia is not formed when the community conforms to us, but when we conform to community.

When people offend us or let us down, why is it that we assume they are in the wrong? Could it possibly be that it is our expectations which are wrong? And even in situations were we are "technically" right, the way in which we often respond to an offending party is wrong. One of the insidious things about legalism, is that it's based on truth. But when truth is touted inappropriately, it often wounds needlessly.

The bottom line? We're quick to blame others, and slow to admit personal responsibilty. Our world SO revolves around "me" -- my needs, my wants, my rights, my opinions -- and we're entirely blind to what it means to humble ourself, deny ourself, or die to ourself. And God forbid that we would ever suffer a wrong for some higher good.

Jesus never lived a self-absorbed life -- he lived the consummate life of self-sacrifice. He didn't go around blaming and then abandoning sinners. He talked with them, ate with them, died for them -- he loved them. And that's exactly what our world needs more of today -- not the absolving of ourselves, but the giving of ourselves... even when it's undeserved.

What are your thoughts?

Yesiree! DesertPastor has left the Desert (well... only for a week or so), and is vacationing in the High Sierra's of California! Here are some pics from yesterday's 8.5 mile hike from Agnew Meadows up to Shadow Lake (8734') and back. It was an amazing trail (part of the historic Pacific Crest Trail) which journeys through the Ansel Adams Wilderness. I've been dying to get on a hike like this for months...

I never tire of being out in the creation like this. The sights and sounds and smells, the breezes and the vistas -- they all remind me of my smallness and vulnerability, of my "creaturliness" in the presence of the Creator. Incredible!

Thanks to Jeff Wright (aka Pursuing_Truth) for highlighting the recent endorcement made by the Bishop of Canterbury for the Good as New bible translation. Jeff's discussion thread at TheOoze is certainly interesting... and quite entertaining as well!

While pondering the stiff resistance that some Christian groups have launched in relation to gender-friendly translations like the NRSV, TNIV, and the NLT, I'm curious whether or not the Good as New translation will become popular enough to draw major fire? And... does the release of this bible mark the beginning of a new trend in worldview-specific bible translations?

You can read the WorldNetDaily article that prompted Jeff's discussion thread, here; and check out some of the specific translation differences of the "Good as New" translation by going here.

Long before I ever sensed God leading me into pastoral work, I repeatedly heard people complaining about ministers who needed to "practice what they preached." Some of this was clearly deserved, yet part of such verbalized sentiment stemmed from the way preachers and teachers and the like were often put on pedestals -- expected to have "mastered" the faith and how they lived it out in their lives.

I suppose that there is always a sense in which I personally realize my vulnerabilities as a human being, and the need to -- as Paul puts it -- "...live up to what we have already attained" (Phil. 3:16), or in other words -- practice what you preach.

However, I often find myself wanting to preach what I practice, rather than setting out to practice what I preach. The nuance of distinction may be subtle, but I truly believe it is a powerful one.

Here's what got me thinking about all of this yesterday.
While I was preaching from John 8, I asked the congregation to tell me which sins Christians often protest against most loudly. The answers were predictable: alchohol and chemical abuse, homosexuality, adultery, abortion, theft. But when I turned it around and asked which sins often go virtually unmentioned, the answers were quite different: usury, lying, gossip, and gluttony.

It's funny, but over the years I've taught or preached on all from this second list -- except gluttony. And the reason? Because I find it very difficult to preach what I'm not already practicing. Now, don' t get me wrong. I believe that gluttony should be addressed, along with personal stewardship (and I don't just mean one's money) -- but I've felt a strong need to get this area under control and disciplined in my own life first before I begin preaching it to others.

In January of this year, I hopped on the scales and practically had a coronary! My weight had risen to an unprecedented high (for me) of 292 lbs. How in the world could I teach on ANY self-control related issue with any real expectation that people would take me seriously? This then led to a cascade of internal questions, including serious reflection concerning how much respect overweight ministers likely forfeit, simply because of the counter-message their physique conveys to others. I am NOT, referring here to people with serious medical conditions, but those (like myself) who choose unhealthy eating practices.

Well anyway, because I'm committed to only preaching what I practice, I began changing my lifestyle about 6 months ago. Through diet and exercise (and prayer), I have now lost over 45 lbs! And I have less than 35 lbs. to go to reach my final weight goal: 210 (I'm 6'3.5" tall). When I reach that weight, it will be the least I've weighed in 25 years.

As I figure it, come January (2005) -- I'll finally be ready to preach on gluttony.

In the meantime, I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts concerning practicing what we preach and preaching what we practice.

At our gathering last night at Paradox, I led a discussion concerning the Spiritual Disciplines, and I just can't seem to shake one of the quotes we considered:

“Superficiality is the curse of our age. The doctrine of instant satisfaction is a primary spiritual problem. The desperate need today is not for a greater number of intelligent people, or gifted people, but for deep people. The classical Disciplines of the spiritual life call us to move beyond surface living into the depths… They urge us to be the answer to a hollow world.”

(Richard J. Foster, Celebration of Discipline)

I honestly believe that the world, the culture, the Church -- all need people who are "deep." But I'm really curious what all of you think -- what is it that makes a person deep?

Do the spiritual disciplines themselves make us deep? Or are they simply a path, a means by which we're introduced to whatever it is that works a sense of depth into our souls?

If you know someone who you would consider to be "deep", how would you describe them? What is it actually that sets them apart from everyone else you know?

I believe in team ministry.

And it seems that everywhere I look, I'm seeing a new generation of leaders within the Church who have become weary of the personality-driven leadership styles that so characterized the Church of the past 30 years and are instead pursuing various expressions of team ministry. In a recent article for ChristianWeek, Ryan Sandulak suggested that the "pastor-led" church will make a come-back:

"Prior to the Industrial Revolution, and the advent of church boards, the church was run by pastors for more than 1,800 years. Pastors were trained in seminaries established specifically for that purpose. Pastors were given charge over the affairs of the local church, and pastors became the hierarchy of the denominations to which they belonged." ("The Pastor as Professional: Business-Style Leadership Has No Place in the Church" by Ryan Sandulak. ChristianWeek, Apr 13, 2004 [Vol 18, No 2].).

Whether or not we revert to this former leadership model, the culture in general (and a growing number within the Christian subculture) are no longer willing to invest in the "one-man-show." However, over-eager ecclesiological pioneers may be discovering that simply adopting a team model of leadership does not automatically translate into "kingdom blessing and success."

Leadership teams certainly help in "sharing the load" -- especially when team leaders are serving in ways consistent with their spiritual gifts. In addition, "group decisions" are often safer than solo decisions. Yet I'm becoming increasingly convinced that an essential ability within every leadership team's "skill-set" must be their ability to hear God's voice together.

There's a popular assumption being propagated today -- that we are entering a post-denominational era in the Church. A new era, where denominational distinctives and loyalites lose their meaning, leading to unparalleled cooperation among followers of Christ. These are certainly exciting times! But I sometimes worry that new lines of demarkation may emerge. And so I'm wondering, will a new breed of sectarianism gradually arise, replacing the denominationalism that we finally tamed?