It is no secret that I have many grievances with the institutional church. I have few reservations in saying that I think it barely breaks even in doing good, versus doing harm to its own and the world who needs to hear the Gospel.

As I read in Romans 15 tonight, Paul talks about his freedom to now come and visit the church in Rome since his doors for service in his own region were coming to a close. So, to better understand the passage, I read from Matthew-Henry’s classic commentary on the text. And one short phrase stood out and left a very bitter taste in my mouth.

It is justly expected from all Christians, that they should promote every good work, especially that blessed work, the conversion of souls. Christian society is a heaven upon earth, an earnest of our gathering together unto Christ at the great day.

Christian society is a ‘heaven upon earth’. In other words, the corporate church is a heaven upon earth.

Well, yes, perhaps in isolated places. Perhaps even in Matthew-Henry’s time this was true. It’s hard to say, really. But for me, in my experience and the experience of many others, this sentiment does not resonate whatsoever. There is little more charity in the institutional church than in the world at large. But, in the church, there is far less acceptance or ‘love’—even patience or forgiveness.

But I do notice that Matthew-Henry deliberately uses the word ‘a’ in order to describe this present ‘heaven’. Of course we cannot attain here what we will truly have with Christ, there.

Nonetheless, the church ought to be something like a heaven on earth, in certain respects. And while the institution will never be perfect, we cannot accept the flaws by that virtue. Much like our own personal pursuits of Christ, we have to continue to tear down the flawed structures and at least attempt to rebuild stronger, more effective ones—regardless of the ‘cost’.

I am one who enjoys a healthy debate. I like a good, sometimes heated, discussion about serious matters. Okay, even some not-so-serious matters. On more than one occasion I have seen substantial shifts in my opinion come from a good debate. And, I’ve known plenty of others who share that experience.

But, with the internet nosing its way into virtually every part of our lives, more and more often those healthy discussions take up residence on the net. And from there, they suffer from a kind of environmental infection rendering them almost completely useless. In fact, I’d even venture to say harmful.

Yeah, you read that correctly. Internet debate, I think, almost always leads nowhere good.

I think it has a lot to do with the impersonal nature of the internet. We’re all covered in what we feel is a shroud of privacy when we converse on the net. In real life we tend to avoid conflict. But on the net most people come out guns-a-blazin’. In less mature circles, online debate spirals into a flame war.

But in more mature circles, I think it manifests in far more subtle ways.

For example. In real life, conversations and debates usually progress nugget by nugget and our answers are not usually rehearsed. They coming off the cuff. That means the conversation moves bit by bit. Rarely is one detail exhausted, but rather, many small details are swept over as the come up in conversation.

But, on the internet it’s just the opposite. I am able to state an opinion or an idea. Someone who disagrees is then able to respond to me. But, instead of responding to one portion of what I said and following the conversation from there like we would in real life, they are able to respond to every detail all at once. Researching on the net, revising their thoughts and looking for leaks in their argument. All before ever hitting submit. That might sound like a benefit. But I don’t think that it is.

See, from there, if the person who had the thought in the first place wishes to respond, it will have to be in length. Once again responding to each point. This, while our facts may be right, does more for our pride than anything else. And by the time the debate is over, you have a thread of conversation that would make a masters thesis blush.

And, as I mentioned before, I think it mostly comes back to the impersonal nature of the internet.

When you converse with someone in real life, by simply making your opinion known, or contending with someone else’s, you are exposing yourself to vulnerability. And, in order for debate to actually be healthy and have any positive impacts on us, we have to be vulnerable to a reasonable extent. It’s humility 101. Something almost no one exercises on the internet.

I submit that the invulnerability we feel on the internet goes a long way to nullifying our debates and making them essentially useless. So for me, I will try and keep my serious debate (at least with those I do not know well) in the real world… or at least video chat.

Week four and I’m still video blogging. Between iMovie and a more relaxed attitude toward my video blog, I’m finding a weekly video to be pretty easy. Sooner or later, I’ll stop copping out of my Sunday blog posts by posting the video blog.

But for now, I’m still spreading the word. So, here you go, this week’s YouTube video blog.

(Can’t see the video? Watch it on YouTube!)

In recent days and weeks, It’s come to my attention that it may be unclear as to why I write on this blog everyday. Although I’ve explained it in the past, perhaps the explanation was unclear, or perhaps too spread out. So, I thought I would take this opportunity to explain why this blog exists.

For Me

This blog started, and continues to exist, primarily for my benefit in a pragmatic sense. I am, by nature, an inconsistent person. Running my own business and having the power to set my own schedule complicates this even further. In my private endeavors, I struggle to start things I want to do and follow through to finish them.

When I began this blog a little over two years ago, the purpose was to help create a practical thread of consistency from day to day. It has been a great success for me and its original purpose remains a huge part of why I continue to write.

For Discussion & Reflection

The other reason I write is for those who might read it. If you read often, you’ll notice that I’m rarely thorough in my presentation of arguments and thoughts (perhaps, at times, to a fault). This is because my intention isn’t to convince people of anything in particular. Rather, my intention is that people might think in general.

Perhaps that means readers disagree with me and immediately start thinking of all the reasons they disagree with me. Or, perhaps they agree with me and start thinking of all the reasons they agree with me, though maybe I didn’t share all of those reasons myself. Either way, I’m a strong proponent of people thinking and engaging with their thoughts more intentionally—but I am ultimately less concerned about what those thoughts are exactly.

In Conclusion

So, I hope this clears things up for the folks who seemed to have been confused about my purpose here. I also hope that perhaps anyone who reads this will feel more encouraged to engage me and others in discussion about the different things shared here. Whether in agreement or disagreement. Either way, I think it’s a good thing.

For three transgressions and for four God would not stay the judgment pronounced on seven different peoples. But on only one of them God was angry for the injury to himself.

In the first two chapters of Amos, God pronounces judgment on Gaza, Damascus, Edom, the Ammonites, Tyre, Moab.

But to Israel he says this (Amos 2:6-7):

    "For three transgressions of Israel,
   and for four, I will not revoke the punishment,
because they sell the righteous for silver,
   and the needy for a pair of sandals—
…

a man and his father go in to the same girl,
   so that my holy name is profaned”

I had to stop and think about this. It was specifically the people called by God’s name that their sin not only stood in its own as a heinous crime. But was much worse than that. Their sin was actually profanity against God’s holiness.

Today, when the people called by God’s name fail to emulate his character to the broken world around them it’s not only a bitter failure, but it’s a caustic reflection of God himself. The church’s abhorrent behavior toward each other and the world is many people’s only picture of God.

Is it any wonder they don’t listen to us?

We know from the rest of scripture that Job wasn’t perfect. He wasn’t ultimately blameless. But he was innocent of the crimes his ‘friends’ accused him of. The calamity that befell him wasn’t the result of his sin, but God’s prerogative. But his friends continue to come at him with theological sounding arguments, which amounted to condemnation of him in his difficult life situation.

Job responds to them. Job 16:2-5:

"I have heard many such things;
    miserable comforters are you all.
Shall windy words have an end?
   Or what provokes you that you answer?
I also could speak as you do,
   if you were in my place;
I could join words together against you
   and shake my head at you.
I could strengthen you with my mouth,
   and the solace of my lips would assuage your pain.”

I think that Job’s words are echoed in many, many who have been bruised and burned by Christians and our American Church culture. Difficult situations and challenges have befallen them and rather than patiently and quietly empathize and encourage, we attempt to define and classify, and ultimately solve the problem with a kind of spiritual algorithm.

But this is a problem. Because it amounts to very little more than judgment on our part.

I think the human experience is vastly complicated and confusing. Even for the one experiencing it, let alone those around him. Although spiritual as it may be, I think we err when jumping to conclusions about other people’s struggles and difficulties.

Although there is a time for careful examination of each other’s struggles, and there is a time for instruction, exhortation and rebuke. I think most of the time, it’s not. But rather, grace, patience, love and empathy.

Christians do a lot of things that I think are strange. Heck, I guess I do a lot of things I think are strange too. But there are few things I find particularly silly. The one I mention today, I mention only because it’s come up in conversation a few times recently and ever since I became a Christian, I can’t help but find myself continually dumbfounded by this unofficial tradition.

Christian Bachelor Parties

Maybe it’s just where I live, I don’t know, but the Christian take on the tradition of bachelor parties (sometimes going  by a different name) is possibly one of the stupidest Christianized traditions that I know of. I for one would be really, really upset if my closest friends decided to throw me one of these—in fact, if any of you are reading this, make a note of it.

Traditionally bachelor parties focus on all the exciting things the bachelor is forever going to have to give up after his wedding day. Boozing, strippers, wild late-night antics, etc, etc. Of course, I wouldn’t care for one of these either. But the underlying point is an event focused on showing the groom a really good time.

Christian bachelor parties are, well, pretty much exactly the opposite. Somehow the bachelor usually ends up naked, humiliated and to compound that, he’s usually left stranded somewhere. I vividly remember the playfully violent use of wet pool noodles from a bachelor party some years ago.

This is something I simply cannot understand. What the heck? The rest of the time we’re all about love and encouragement and building each other up (or at least we’re supposed to be), but when a brother in Christ is taking, literally, one of the biggest steps of his life, we express our endearment with nudity and humiliation? Even if it is all in jest, why is that our choice of jest?

This is something I can’t wrap my mind around and I’m not going to keep trying. So, if you want to keep your clothes on for your bachelor party, I’d pick your best man very carefully; I know I will.