I was reminded of this important nuance via Peter Rollin’s one-time Christian post where he identifies himself as a “one-time Christian…now committed to the task of becoming Christian.”

Or as the apostle Paul says:

“For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

Another way of phrasing Paul’s argument is to simply say salvation is ongoing.

Unfortunately, this idea seems to be lost on contemporary evangelical culture. I believe this present dilemma is largely due to loud-mouth neo-fundie adherents of substitutionary atonement where salvation becomes reduced to a legal contract and the cross is our get-out-of-jail-free-card into Heaven.
(Not to mention the even-louder-mouthed penal-substitutionary-atonement sadists who think God had to kick Christ’s ass so God could get his required divine satisfaction.)

While substitionary atonement certainly has its place, a closer reading of the Gospels and the Letter’s of Paul show that Christ’s death and resurrection has a much wider purpose. Namely, the cross shows what it means to love, and how we are to live. Or as one of my favorite theologians likes to put it, the cross teaches us “who we are to be.” More on that later.

For a similar take see the following clip where Rich Mullins explains the difficulty of trying to answer when he “became a Christian.”

Coffee & Theology

Like theology, coffee comes in a lot of varieties. On one end there is the ever popular french vanilla skim latte, sprinkled with cinnamon and topped with a dollop of whip cream. Though we are assured it is a coffee-based drink, the presence of any cocoa based substance is virtually indiscernible thanks to the array of sugary substances added to make the drink attractive to the masses. On the other extreme is pure bona-fide espresso. Initially offensive, but with studious attention one begins to perceive a broad diversity of flavors and nuances as well as an appreciation for the care and effort by which it was crafted. Within this spectrum I believe Coffeehouse Theology is best accompanied by the standard latte. While nothing is sugar-coated or masked in the interest of commercialization, neither does it reveal the complexity and depth of, say, the writings of the Niebuhr brothers. What it does do, and does quite well, is present complicated theological topics like contextuality, historiography, post-foundationalism, and literary-theory in a manner that is unintimidating and largely uncontroversial, or in other words, palatable.

Strengths & Weaknesses

From my perspective the lack of controversy is both the book’s greatest strength as well as its weakness. Rare is the ability to present divisive arguments in easy to understand terms. Rarer still is the ability to do so without stepping on anyone’s toes. Cyzewski has succeeded in doing both. At the same time, I feel that the book goes too far in some respects. Key to learning a concept is being able to internalize the idea, and for me, part of that process involves wrestling with gaps, inconsistencies, and other frictions, many of which are passed over in Coffeehouse Theology.

Audience

I have a few acquiantences that are, theologically speaking, a bit touchy. You know, like the folks that are always leaving 2,000 word rants on Tony Jones’ blog and who go into panic mode at the slightest whiff of anything that might seem “postmodern.” I suspect that these folks form a large segment of the audience Cyzewski had in mind for this book. Yet beyond cynics, this book offers promise to anyone who has not had the opportunity to think critically about the practice of theology in the 21st century. In particular, students in the fields of science and business may find significant profit from this book as, in my experience, they represent categories least likely to be exposed to the modern->postmodern paradigm shift and therefore have the most to gain in becoming aware of their own theology’s contextuality.

Yet I think this book also holds promise to the seminarian. I’ll be honest and say that I did not experience any lighting-bolt eye-opening theological insight while reading Coffeehouse Theology. In fact, thanks to this guy, the importance of recognizing that theology is contextual (or post-foundationalist) was already covered during undergrad. Where I found insight, however, is through Cyzewski’s ability to articulate these ideas in a way that is presentable to those outside the walls of academia. One of my biggest critiques of academia, Christian academia in particular, is that the dissemination of knowledge is usually a trickle where it should be an overflow. Simply because of its ability to present theological ideas clearly, I feel Coffeehouse Theology is worthy to rest prominently on any seminarian’s bookshelf.

If you’re a casual reader who wants to understand what all the postmodern hubbub is about and what it means for the practice of Christian faith, or if you’re a sensitive reader prone to quickly rejecting ideas that don’t meet your narrow litmus test, or if you’re an emergent who’s “conversations” frequently result in either puzzled looks or willful rejection, then allow me to officially recommend to you Coffeehouse Theology.

Meeting

We passed on the sidewalk near the center of Times Square. I was heading to Penn Station to catch a train. He was shuffling in a somewhat contorted manner and carrying a soft drink cup with some change in it which he was using to solicit strangers. He also happened to be wearing a t-shirt in 25 degree weather. Looking down I also discovered that he was barefoot despite the fact that it had been snowing all day. Nevertheless, because I was nervous about catching my train, or so I reasoned to myself, I kept walking.

After traveling about a block I decided, whether out of guilt or curiosity, to look back hoping that perhaps someone after me had stopped to offer help (both the man’s condition as well as my feelings of responsibility).

But there he was, standing partially contorted in his t-shirt and sweatpants near the edge of the curb holding his cup out. Seeing a police car nearby I thought I might at least inquire about the city’s protocol regarding barefoot mentally handicapped people. Hoping they might take a hint, I asked the officer in the vehicle if there was a nearby shelter I could connect this person to. He responded that there was one around the block, but that the gentleman would have to “want” to be admitted, I could not force him. I pretty much took that to mean “good luck,” so, mustering up what little extroversion I had, I approached the man and asked him if I could help him at least find a shelter.

The following is an overview of our exchange, as best as I can remember it:

me: Aren’t you cold, can I help you find a shelter?
Jeffrey: (with what sounded like an air of hope in his voice): Are you a worker at a shelter?
me: No, I’m just a friend. (At this point I realized that “friend” was actually a feigned attempt to project the opposite of who I really was.)
Jeffrey: thanks, I’m just fine, I’m just trying to get these people to give me some, a little money, ya know, just some money.
me: You sure you’re not cold?
Jeffrey: No, I’m just fine, but I am pretty hungry, you could get me a Quarter Pounder? If that’s not too much? If it’s not too much money, I don’t like eating from the street vendors. They don’t wash their hands.
me: (internally disturbed by the thought of stepping into McDonalds) how about something from somewhere else?
Jeffrey: No I’d really like a Quarter Pounder, that would be fine.
me: Can I help you find some shoes?
Jeffrey: Oh I think a couple said they were going to find me some shoes, I don’t know where they went, but I think they’ll come back.
me: Ok, well, where’s a McDonalds?
Jeffrey: There’s one up the street, I’ll be here when you get back. I’ve got’s to try and get me some more money
(5 minutes later I return from McDonalds with a Quarter Pounder)
me: hey, here you go.
Jeffrey: Oh thanks man, that’s great, thanks.
me: is there anything else I can help you with.
Jeffrey: no man,that’s good.
me: well, what’s your name.
Jeffrey: thank you, my name’s Jeffrey, what’s yours.
me: I’m Scott.
Jeffrey: well thanks man.
me: all right.

With the fear of missing my train still on my mind I left Jeffrey there with his newly acquired McDonalds Quarter Pounder, still shoeless, still in his dirty t-shirt. As I walked away I looked up to see the multitude of glittering billboards hawking the latest fashion, newest cars, mindless entertainment,and must-have electronic accessories, which now seemed to serve is huge distractions from the real world I had just seen. I looked around at all the other people in Times Square, each of whom seemed to be in their own little hurry just like me, and thus unimpressed at the sight of Jeffery standing there in his bare feet. I kept walking hoping not to draw attention to the fact that I had begun crying. Quickening my pace I felt a sense of resistance coming from my back pocket and realized it was the article I had been reading on the train ride into the city, the title: “Revelation’s Visionary Challenge to Ordinary Empire.”

Reaction

There are two unusual and seemingly disconnected things that, as of this writing, stand out most clearly about Jeffrey.

The first were his feet. They were quite large (I’m guessing a size 13) and, surprisingly, didn’t seem to be all that dirty given that he was walking around in the slush. The one exception being his toe nails, most of which were almost entirely black.

The second was his smile. He had a very warm smile which immediately reminded me of the smile I get from my 9 month old daughter when I come home from work. I can’t really explain that connection other than perhaps their smiles share a similar simplicity.

A part of me wonders why, after growing up as a dedicated member in the life of the church, and having reading volumes of ethical/theological literature, I didn’t know quite what to do, or as Hauerwas might say “who to be,” in my interaction with Jeffrey.

Another part of me thinks I knew exactly what to do but was too afraid/intimidated/selfish/complacent, to follow through with it…

This post is dedicated to my friend Dan Davidson for first introducing me to the idea of “Improvisation.”

Churches that follow the liturgy change their sanctuary aesthetics according to the liturgical date or season. This plugin uses CSS to allow these same changes to be made to a website’s theme. The Liturgical Year Themes Wordpress plugin uses the date() and easter_days() php functions to calculate the current liturgical day or season. A correlating CSS file is loaded which allows the designer to override their default theme with one fitting for the current time on the Christian calendar. The plugin also provides the option of printing the day or season’s title in the document markup. The Liturgical Year Themes plugin is targeted at church websites, but can also be useful for journals and blogs that value the liturgy.

*Currently this plugin follows the Liturgical year practiced by western churches. In the future I may include an option to select the eastern liturgical calendar as an alternative.

Features

• Make your website’s appearance consistent with the movements of the liturgical year.
• Print the title of the current liturgical day or season.

Download

liturgical-year-themes.zip

Installation

1. Upload the /liturgical-year-themes/ folder to your blog’s plugins folder (usually /wp-content/plugins/) and activate it.
2. Upload the /liturgy/ folder into your current theme directory (usually /wp-content/themes/your-themes-name/).
3. Add <?php get_liturgical_time(); ?> to your header template file after the style.css reference and before the closing </head> tag.
4. Edit the stylesheets in the /liturgy/ directory to override your theme’s default styles.

Included CSS files

advent.css
third-week-of-advent.css
christmas-eve.css
christmas.css
epiphany.css
after-epiphany.css
transfiguration.css
ash-wednesday.css
lent.css
palm-sunday.css
maundy-thursday.css
good-friday.css
holy-saturday.css
resurrection-sunday.css
easter.css
eastertide.css
ascension.css
pentecost.css
trinity-sunday.css
ordinary-time.css
all-saints-day.css
christ-the-king.css

*editing the file names will require editing the corresponding reference in the plugin function.

Optional

you can use <?php get_liturgical_time('title'); ?> to print the date or season title (you will need to wrap it in your own html tag) and <?php get_liturgical_time('name') ?> to print a dashed referenced suitable for file names.

How It Works

Advent days and seasons are calculated according to their fixed calendar dates. Easter days and seasons are calculated using the php function easter_days() which provides the number of days between March 21 and Easter, after which all of the Easter dates and seasons can be derived. Fixed calendar dates include an additional test to allow for the possibility of leap year.

Feedback

This plugin is still very much a work in progress so I would love any comments, criticisms, or suggestions on how it can be improved. I plan on releasing a more mature version which will include an admin menu to control options and preferences sometime before the Season of Lent.

For whatever reasons, I should admit that I never really took seriously, nor thought it worthwhile to explore, the statement by Nietzsche that “God is Dead.” Philosopher Peter Rollins has made me wish that I had taken the opportunity to pursue Nietzsche a little deeper. Contrary to popular understandings, Rollins suggests that Nietzshe’s argument isn’t so much a criticism of the existence of God, as much as it is a criticism of the Christian’s claim to belief in God. During his talk at the Emergent Mid-Atlantic Conference (and also in his book The Fidelity of Betrayal), Rollins argues that Nietzsche’s “God is Dead” beautifully exposes how insignificant God has become in the life of the contemporary church.

First, the passage in context from Frederick Nietzsche’s The Madman:

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I seek God! I seek God!” — As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. “Has he got lost?” asked one. “Did he lose his way like a child?” asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? — Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him — you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”

Peter Rollins responds that,

…Neitzsche is drawing out the idea that God is dead, in the sense that God no longer has any transformative power. God has simply become an idea. We’re theoretical theists, so we believe in God in our minds. And we’re practical atheists, we live as though God does not exist. We rely on our jobs for money and we rely on our friendships for meaning, so God is reduced to a private sphere and doesn’t really have any public significance anymore.

from Talk 1 at approx. 23 minutes

I think nothing affirms the suggestion that Christianity has lost its transformative power quite like the notion of a “Christian” bumper sticker. How is a slogan on a bumper sticker in any way evidence of the life-changing transformative power of God? The notion that a bumper sticker might have anything at all to say about Christianity simply suggests that for many Christians their faith is worth about $1.50. As such, we have become, as Rollins mentioned above, little more than theoretical theists.

At the same time I feel that my example of Christianity isn’t much better. Do others see me as a peculiar individual whose actions are driven by the foolish notion of some rumored “event” involving death and resurrection, or is my identity constructed more from my music collection, choice of clothing, and the amount of gigahertz I can fit in my pocket? Am I also living as though God is dead?

Likewise, are the recent intellectual battles waged in the name of Evangelicalism, such as California’s Proposition 8, the public display of the 10 Commandments, and the exhaustive attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade, also evidence that God has been reduced to an idea? Where is the transformative power in those examples? If not there, does this transformative power exist elsewhere in the greater life of the Church?

Jesus said we are each to take up our cross and follow Him. Rollin’s argument suggests that, if that’s the case, much of what goes on in the name of Jesus in the contemporary Church might be missing the mark. Are we in fact living as though God is dead?

Are you?

The voter chooses not a position of principle but the less objectionable of two competing oligarchies. Understanding the franchise as a means of communicating to the bearers of political authority underlines how seriously the Christian witness is compromised by the fact that for most Christians the decision about how to vote is not the expression of any careful evaluation of what needs to be said to the authorities; the decision to abstain from voting is likewise seldom evaluated with a view to its communicating something.

I began voicing my reservations several months ago with a series of posts titled Christian Participation in Representative Democracy (read Part I and Part II). Since that time I have engaged a wide range of perspectives concerning voting and Christian discipleship. In particular I recommend:

• Voting Not to Vote by Mark Noll
• Ten Reason Why I’m Not Voting by Mark Vansteewyk
• 10 Reasons to Vote: A Sympathetic Challenge to Mark’s 10 Reasons NOT to Vote by Casey Ochs
• Not Voting as Violence: …Why I Get Suspicious When White Men Tell Me Not to Vote by Anthony Smith
• How “Not Voting” Could Help Subvert American Racism: A Response to Anthony Smith’s post on Emergent Village by David Fitch
• How ‘Voting’ Could Subvert American Race Privilege: A Response To David Fitch’s Response by Anthony Smith
• Scot McKnight’s Voting For President?
• Why I Believe Christians Should Vote by Jim Wallis
• Voting as Damage Control by Shane Claiborne
• How Then Shall We Vote by Derek Webb
• and a rather surprising announcement by everyone’s favorite fideistic sectarian tribalist sharing whom he intends to vote for.

as well as:

• Electing Not to Vote: Christian Reflections on Reasons for Not Voting, edited by Ted Lewis
  (there is an excellent review over at N. Dan Smith’s blog)
• Jeffrey Stout’s Democracy And Tradition
• Resident Aliens by Stanley Hauerwas
• Karl Barth’s Community, State, and Church: Three Essays
• Shane Claiborne’s Jesus For President
• God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It by Jim Wallis
• and of course John Howard Yoder’s seminal The Politics of Jesus

After considering these various positions I have concluded (along with the majority it would seem) that there appear to be more arguments in favor of voting than against. In particular, the fact that voting takes all of 5 minutes but can impact the policies of one of the most powerful nations in the world would seem to make voting a no-brainer. Nevertheless, I will be abstaining from the 2008 election. There are several reasons why I feel it is important for me to sit this one out.

Conscience:

Were I to vote in the 2008 election it would certainly come down to determining which candidate represented the lesser of two evils the least amount of friction with my own beliefs. I completely understand that no candidate will ever agree with me 100%, but at what point does one draw the line? The problem is which (or how many) issues am I prepared to compromise so that other issues might be realized. As an example, I voted for Bush in 2000 primarily for his position on abortion. Unfortunately, 8 years later almost nothing has been accomplished with respect to abortion and we’re now in an unnecessary war in Iraq.

Equally problematic I think, is the nature in which each of the candidates have run their campaigns. To say that McCain has been running a negative campaign would be an understatement. To my mind it has been more of a perversion, and, as Colin Powell has rightly illuminated, one which has promoted bigotry, racism, and hatred. His rival, Barak Obama, has exploited religious themes and language in a manner similar to that of President Bush while fundraising and outspending his opponent by almost 4 to 1. Isn’t there something to be said for believing that one’s endorsement should not be achieved through lying, wealth, or denigrating the Christian vernacular?

Competing Allegiances

I have also become increasingly concerned with the idea that “we are a Christian nation.” Specifically, what exactly is meant by “we?” The Apostle Peter writes:

But [we] are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that [we] may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called [us] out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Yet is appears that many in the Church are missing the significance of this idea. Conservatives, focused on issues of morality, seek to pass legislation that will condemn what they consider to be immoral so that the country can return to its Christian roots, which unfortunately for them, never historically existed. For the more liberal minded, the issue becomes justice and the goal is to pass legislation which will lead to a more just society so as to help build the Kingdom of God. One obvious problem with both of these approaches is that they only voice part of the truth. Where it becomes problematic for me however, is that both positions potentially reduce the Church’s voice to that of a lobbyist, thus weakening the Church by making it dependent on the State to achieve its mission.

Political Inaction

For me, the popular idea that the voting booth is where you “take action,” “make your voice heard,” or practice your “civic responsibility” doesn’t carry much weight. From my perspective, the American political process is 10 long months of steadily increasing extravagance and exhibitionism which climaxes in a brief moment where you share your deepest secret in a private booth, after which you can resume typical mundane activities like browsing the latest JCrew catalog. In other words, voting actually requires very little activity, and more importantly, the election process seems to function more as a distraction from the real action we could be doing. As Stanley Hauerwas puts it:

National politics is like the Roman circus in first century Rome. It is entertainment to keep us distracted from the real issues.

Abolitionism: A Christian Response to War?: A Panel Discussion, Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture, September 27, 2002

I think most Christians understand politics as the process of choosing between democrat or republican, big or small government, public or private health care, and other divisive binary issues. This simply underscores the problem of competing allegiances I mentioned above. For Christians, politics is much more than determining your views on matters of policy, it is a visible activity where the idols of power, greed, selfishness, and violence are subverted by humility, generosity, self-sacrifice, and love. In that respect, the Church’s most significant political message is Christ’s death and resurrection, and it is to that which we must give voice. Image what real action could happen if, four years from now, Christians spent the months leading up to the election participating in tangible missional activities rather than arguing with family and friends and soaking up media gibberish that results in brainwashing and mindlessness.

For me, exactly how this Christian political witness is to be practiced is very much a work in progress. I feel that part of my discernment requires a certain amount of “space” to allow for the these ideas to further develop. Thus my decision to abstain from voting this year should not be taken as something that should apply to everyone, or even that it will be my same attitude four years from now.

Lest some of you fear I may be withdrawing, I will be participating in political activity on November 5th by joining my fellow Christians at the Vineyard Community Church of Morristown with a day of prayer and fasting for whomever becomes the new president.

To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world.

Karl Barth

Talk amongst yourselves.

In one of my more memorable meetings with Don I was caught by the following statement, the implications of which offer an excellent overview of what made Fairhaven Student Ministries successful.

If you really want to follow Jesus, then find the person sitting alone in the lunch room and offer to be their friend.

My initial response after hearing that statement was the sensation of a heaviness pulling at the bottom of my stomach. I’m not sure if Don knew it at the time, but I had first hand experience of being that person who ate alone. Eating alone is oddly similar to that feeling you get right after learning that a close friend has died in that time slows, your mind can’t focus on anything else, and you lose all sense of appetite. At the time of our conversation I had managed to become reasonably adept at avoiding being that person, but the memories were present enough that I knew it was something I did not want to revisit.

I knew, first of all, how visible one became as a result of eating alone. Though the process involved doing as little as possible to attract attention, inevitably it was as if every eye in the cafeteria was bearing down on you in an effort to determine what repulsive quality prevented anyone from wanting to be seen with you. Indeed, one of the caveats of having been that person is a familiarity with the other individuals who also face the threat of eating alone; whether due to their objectionable clothing, or wrong piercings, or unattractiveness, or questionable grooming habits. Whereas adolescent culture (and more often than not, our culture at large) dictates the importance of distancing oneself from such marginalized individuals, Don helped me see that following Jesus challenges our self-centered impulse by suggesting that it is pricesely those marginalized for whom we are to give our primary attention.

Yet the most frightening realization was that following Jesus meant I couldn’t simply visit during a lunch period, say some nice things, hope too many people wouldn’t spot me, and be on my way. I had to become a friend. Friendship isn’t just another word for being nice, but involves getting to know the other person to the point where a level of responsibility is placed on the relationship. In other words, friendship requires a commitment over time. This was not something I could accomplish in a day, or even a week. Rather, it would need to become something like a habit, something that in a small way might even change who I was, and something that posed a threat to the person who, at the time, I thought I wanted to become.

Finally, the full impact of this challenge lay in the reality that it wasn’t an idea I could just talk about, but something I had to live. For many of my Christian friends, sharing the gospel in high school involved adorning oneself with a disgraceful Christian t-shirt (disgraceful in that it was usually neither thoughtful nor creative) and “taking a stand” when the subjects of abortion and evolution were brought up. Don challenged this interpretation with his belief that the Gospel is something we embody (and vicariously, if it can’t be embodied, then it probably isn’t the Gospel.) More precisely, being a Christian isn’t about asking the question “what would Jesus do?” it’s about determining based on Jesus example, “what kind of person is Jesus calling me to be?”

To conclude, Don’s suggestion offers several profound insights about what it means to follow Jesus, which conveniently happen to be the same insights which I think made Fairhaven Student Ministries successful, in particular:

• Christianity is visible
• Christianity is nonjudgemental
• Christianity is relational
• Christianity is concerned with the other over oneself
• Christianity involves risk
• Christianity is embodied

Three years into a marriage you will discover that you married the wrong person.

Not exactly something you would find on a Hallmark card is it? Needless to say the roomful of guests fell awkwardly silent save for a few folks murmoring their dissaproval. I then hastily added the qualifier:

And it’s at that point that you begin to learn what it truly means to love.

This principle is often referred to as the “Hauerwas Law” which simply says “You always marry the wrong person.” I think the following story highlights the importance of the Hauerwas Law.

In undergrad I had a friend who had been dating the same individual for several years. However, at a certain point in their relationship this individual claimed he needed to break up with my friend because, as he put it, he had “fallen out of love” with her. The problem with this approach is that love is not something that falls on us, it is something we practice. More importantly, this limited understanding of love leaves little room for the role of other Christian practices necessary for marriage like commitment, mercy, hospitality, and forgiveness.

Hauerwas offers his own reflection in A Community Of Character:

Christians have far too readily underwritten the romantic assumption that people ‘fall’ into love and then get married. We would be much better advised to suggest that love does not create marriage; rather marriage provides a good training ground to teach us what love involves.
p. 284

Similarly, he offers this explanation via an interview with Duke Magazine:

When couples come to ministers to talk about their marriage ceremonies, ministers think it’s interesting to ask if they love one another. What a stupid question! How would they know? A Christian marriage isn’t about whether you’re in love. Christian marriage is giving you the practice of fidelity over a lifetime in which you can look back upon the marriage and call it love. It is a hard discipline over many years.

Nevertheless, sensing that my “wrong person” statement was possibly a little heavy for a wedding dinner I thought I might lighten the tone by shifting from theology to philosophy! I was reading John Caputo’s What Would Jesus Deconstruct on my flight to the wedding and found this particular passage quite insightful.

…when you get married, you are saying ‘I do’ not only to who this person is, or who you think this person is, but to whomever or whatever this person is going to become, which is unknown and unforeseen to the both of you. That is a risk, what Levinas called a ‘beautiful risk,’ but it is a risk all the same…if it were a sure thing it would be about as beautiful as a conversation with your stockbroker.
p. 45

I think one of the reasons Christians experience so much difficulty with marriage is because we have failed to articulate a definition of love that is unique from what is exhibited in popular culture.

When my wife and I were married some friends of ours suggested we consider a covenant marriage—something popular with evangelicals—as an added buffer against the threat of divorce—also something popular with evangelicals. I declined on the basis that our marriage was a commitment to God and to each other in the presence, and participation, of the Church, which to me is considerably more binding than any government legislation.

I think it’s the Christian’s inability to make these kinds of distinctions that limits our understanding of how marriage might operate as a distinctly Christian practice.

What about you? Has marriage helped inform your understanding of love? In what ways do you think Christian love is incompatible with popular conceptions of love?

I looked up the artist from one of their album’s liner notes—where it was mispelled—and learned that Vasily Kafanov, a Russian born painter living in New York City, did the paintings for all three mewithoutYou albums and, interestingly, also collaborated with Billy Corgan for the Machina/Machines of God concept ablum artwork. In particular I appreciate the texture and detail of Kafano’s artwork which at times is so stricking that it appears as if the pieces are actually made using elements of wood and metal, rather than simply painted.

Fortunately, the first two mewithoutYou albums are available on vinyl from the fine people at Gilead Media, and their most recent album Brother, Sister is likewise available at Burnt Toast Vinyl. I ended up choosing their 2nd album, Catch For Us The Foxes, simply because it is has the most vivid color palate which will make it more attractive framed on a wall.

It was a lot of work, probably too much, though I believe I have accomplished future-proofing at least 80% of the site. Nevertheless, I have decided that from this point forward, rather than making wide-sweeping but infrequent overhauls to the site I will be taking advantage of subtle but frequently occurring realignments.

What is a Realign?

In 2005 web designer Cameron Moll wrote a timeless article published on A List Apart titled “Good Designers Redesign, Great Designers Realign,” with the basic idea that:

The desire to redesign is aesthetic-driven, while the desire to realign is purpose-driven.

Based on Cameron’s definition I would argue that my recent changes already qualify as a realign. However, going forward I intend to take the realign concept one step further. I want to be in the habit of always realigning. Allow me to make an adventurous theological analogy.

A Probably Not-So-Great Analogy Comparing Evangelical Notions of Salvation to Web Design

In the evangelical world the popular understanding of salvation is that of one specific moment in time where one is “saved” once and for all. The out with the old in with the new perspective is roughly similar to the idea of a redesign, where an old design gets replaced by a new design and everything is a done deal.

In some of the less confident, or more excitable, shadows of evangelicalism it is common to hear of “recommitting” oneself. This view believes that things can still go awry despite a well-intentioned “salvific experience” and thus the individual might benefit from refocusing their life after thoughtful personal reflection. In a similar manner, a realign understands that while the last redesign may have been well thought out, new circumstances require that recent modifications and enhancements be put in their proper place. A realign takes stock of these recent developments and carries the original intentions of the design one step further.

A third concept, uncommon among evangelicals despite being quite “biblical,” is the Pauline idea of salvation. The Pauline view of salvation, taken from some of Paul’s New Testament letters, speaks of being saved as something that is both a present and ongoing activity. From this perspective, each decision and action can take one further along the path of being a disciple of Christ. Realigning likewise suggests an always present ongoing activity where each adjustment improves some manner of the usability, accessibility, presentation, or performance of the redesign. This notion of recurring improvements is where I intend to journey with this site for the next couple years.

I hope you enjoy my work in progress. If you have any comments regarding the recent realign, or suggestions for ways you think I can improve the site going forward I would love to hear them.