• Home
  • About
  • Podcast Archive
  • Subscribe (RSS)
  • Subscribe (iTunes)
  • Deacons
  • Live Events
  • Advertise With Us

Homebrewed Christianity

Equipping grassroots theologians for creative thinking, engaging, and living.

Living the Questions

You are here: Home / Archives for Bo Sanders

Tripp & Tony with a Twist

June 11, 2013 by Bo Sanders 1 Comment

Tonight we are convening the annual Fuller v Claremont/HBC Corn-Hole Tournament. Tony Jones is in town with his Fuller DMin cohort and they are coming out to the coast to hang with us this evening.

After the frivolity and games we are going to turn on the microphones and play a different type of game.

Now, both Tripp and Tony have let their positions be known on a vast array of issues. We pretty much know where they are coming from … so tonight we are going to set it up a little differently.

1) I will be sitting between them moderating a different type of dialogue.

2) Statements will come in quick succession and when one of them takes a position, the other is required to be a contrarian – something they both have the ability to do.

 

Please send your one sentence scenarios to:   AnEverydayTheology@gmail.com 

 

Here are some sample style starters:

  • “Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Life is still more influential than all of Rob Bell’s books combined.”

 

  • ” Twitter is a great way to hash (tag) out controversy because it is democratic.”

 

Please do not post questions here as I will not have me computer with me at the event. I will compile the questions and try to sequence them for the most entertaining exchange.

 

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: latest Tagged With: cornhole, event, Fuller, podcast, Tony Jones

TNT: Call-In Special for Church & World Challenge

June 8, 2013 by Bo Sanders 11 Comments

TNT Version1Last month Bo & Callid discussed it on TNT, then Bo put out the Church and World Call-In Challenge and hot diggity we got some great calls! This episode is a selection of those calls and the Nerd’s responses.

We want to thank those who donated to the show and sponsored the episodes this month. Thank you to Jay Bakker, John Pohl, as well as Susan Rogers St Laurent and Marc St Laurent.

*** If you enjoy all the Homebrewed Christianity Podcasts then consider sending us a donation via paypal. We got bandwidth to buy & audiological goodness to dispense. We will also get a percentage of your Amazon purchase through this link OR you can send us a few and get us a pint!***


Subscribe on iTunes Here!

Subscribe on iTunes!

Subscribe on iTunes Here!

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: latest, thinking, TNT Tagged With: church, ecclesiology, world

Religion in America: June 2013

June 4, 2013 by Bo Sanders 11 Comments

Last week 3 interesting items came across my radar screen.

  1. A new CNN poll entitled “America losing its religion”
  2. A NYTimes op-ed called “Belief Is the Least Part of Faith” by an author who specializes on Evangelicals.
  3. A God Complex Radio interview with Cameron Trimble on the Future of Church Renewal.

Each of these three caught my attention for a different reason. I want to try to connect them here and then listen to what you have to say.

In the CNN poll, it turns out that:

“More than three in four of Americans say religion is losing its influence in the United States, according to a new survey, the highest such percentage in more than 40 years.”  One-Room Schoolhouse

There are two interesting parts to that opening sentence. The first is that it is only people ‘saying it’. It doesn’t meant that religion IS losing it’s influence – only that it feels that way to 3/4 of those surveyed. The second point is that 40 years ago it felt much that same way.

The article points out two other times in recent history that the percentage was very similar. Those periods were 1969-1970 and then again in 1991-1994.

 

In the NY Times op-ed piece, T. M. Luhrmann, attempts to clarify a common misconception by those who do not go to church about why people go to church. She is arguing that it is not because of belief – but rather that belief comes from action (going to church/living out your faith) for those who go to church.

As interesting as her stories and finding were, the part that really caught my attention (as one who comes from an Evangelical perspective) is that :

If you can sidestep the problem of belief — and the related politics, which can be so distracting — it is easier to see that the evangelical view of the world is full of joy. God is good. The world is good. Things will be good, even if they don’t seem good now. That’s what draws people to church. It is understandably hard for secular observers to sidestep the problem of belief. But it is worth appreciating that in belief is the reach for joy, and the reason many people go to church in the first place.

 

In the God Complex Radio interview with Rev. Cameron Trimble was great. She is the director of the center for progressive renewal and Derek asked her about the future of the church. She had fantastic answer that are best days are not behind us. This piqued my interest because of the CNN poll.

When I think about these three items together, I come to two conclusions:

A) IF the churches best days are not behind us, then WHAT the church is in the future will be very different – almost unrecognizable – from what we have been used to for the past couple of centuries.

B) The way that we engage media, use technology, train future leaders and use resources – especially buildings – is so important because of the reason that Luhrmann said in the NY Times piece that people are even going to church. Trimble also points out in the interview that the reason people even go to church at all has changed in the last 50 years.

 

I would love to hear your thoughts on these trends and ideas. 

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: latest, thinking Tagged With: Bible, church, CNN, God, God Complex radio, jesus, Luhrmann, NY Times, religion, Trimble

Privilege is not Racism, Sexism or Oppression: a proposal

May 28, 2013 by Bo Sanders 104 Comments

If you have been following the blog-o-sphere or twitter-verse this past 2 weeks, then you will know that race, gender, sexuality and social location have been quite contentious issues. Boy at Cockflight_3

It just so happens that I have been far out of the loop as I have been on hiatus while renovating my parents house – so I have watched all of this from a safe distance. 

I was asked last week to write something regarding the issue. After reading every possible link, blog and tweet that I could, I have decided to forego commenting on the events themselves – for reasons contained in this post – and instead put forward a constructive proposal for going forward. 

 

In order to accomplish the desired conversation, I first need to clarify a couple of things:

  1. Next year I will attempt write a dissertation within the discipline of practical theology which addresses the issue of White privilege.
  2. This post is only reporting a distinction that I will employ in my work.
  3. I am not telling anyone else what to do, what words to use – nor am I attempting to limit others or re-define the terms or ground rules for engagement.

 

Two Fatal Flaws: 

The conversation around issues of Race-Gender-Class and Identity Politics usually breaks down and becomes unfruitful due to two fatal flaws in how the conversation is framed.

  • The first flaw is the use of either-or binaries and dualism that are too limiting and not nearly complex enough to accurately reflect the reality of the issue that attempting to address.
  • The second flaw is the sloppy mixing of words and categories without clear distinction.

 

Here is an example of each:

I am a person of privilege in almost every category. That privilege allows me to benefit from systems that oppress, hurt, and marginalize people. Does that mean that I am an oppressor? In the current binary configuration, I am not oppressed so I must be an oppressor.  We have seen all too well how this line of reasoning goes. 

As a white person, I am located in a place of racial privilege. Does that make me a racist? While I benefit from systemic racism, I am not consciously attempting to participate in or reinforce the prevailing racist structures… in fact, I may even be attempting to undermine them and confront them.

 

A Change: 

I would like to see us move away from either-or options based on limited binaries and make a move toward multiplicity that more accurately reflects the complexity of the situation. This would be done by first adding a third category – then and here is the big one – by distinguishing within each of those at least 2 postures: active and passive.

We would then have
A) Privilege
B) Racism/Sexism
C) Oppression/Marginalization

AND each of those would be clarified by a passive or active posture/participation.

 

You could then have someone who is in a place of racial privilege who is passively (and possibly ignorantly) benefiting from the privilege without 1) being very aware of it 2) actively contributing to the marginalization or oppression of another group – and certainly not being overtly racist.

In this configuration we could distinguish between those who are active and those who are passive in their privilege – active and passive in the racist/sexist structures – and active passive in the marginalization/ oppression that results.

These seem to be important distinctions that prevent the oppressed-oppressor either-or binary that is so prevalent in Identity Politics but which is so alienating and confusing to those who have yet to confront/consider issues of Race-Gender-Class in this way.

 

Definitions: 

I am utilizing concepts from ‘Race, Class, and Gender in the United States’ by Paula S. Rothenberg. The two major distinctions that I am interacting with come from Peggy McIntosh and Beverly Daniels Tatum respectively.

Peggy McIntosh on White privilege:

I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was “meant” to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks.

This privilege, as Brekke El (@WrdsandFlsh on twitter) points out, “Privilege in America is BUILT on institutions of racism, sexism & oppression”.

Beverly Daniels Tatum distinguishes between active and passive racism:

… All White people, intentionally or unintentionally, do benefit from racism. (A Klan member or the name calling Archie Bunker are) images (that) represent what might be called active racism, blatant, intentional acts of racial bigotry and discrimination. Passive racism is more subtle and can be seen in the collusion of laughing when a racist joke is told, of letting exclusionary hiring practices go unchallenged, of accepting as appropriate the omissions of people of color from the curriculum, and of avoiding difficult race-related issues.
Because racism is so ingrained in the fabric of America institutions, it is easily self-perpetuating. All that is required to maintain it is business as usual.

 

Here is why I am taking this approach: 

These issues are far too important to resign ourselves to the round-and-round in-house binaries of generations past that have not delivered the desired results and have not initiated those in places of power/privilege into constructive examinations of the systems and structures that benefit them.

These issues would seem to be matters that people of faith would be more interested in than the culture as a whole (due to the nature of the material) but which seem to have largely the opposite reaction in a sizable portion of that population.

We need to alter the way in which the conversation is framed if we want to both affect different outcomes than have already been achieved OR if we want to involve ever-increasing amounts of people in expanding rings of influence.

 

Again, I am not trying to tell anyone else what to do – I am in no place to do so. I am only attempting to share a distinction that I will be utilizing in my future project in the hopes that others might find it equally useful. 

 

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: engaging, latest, living, thinking Tagged With: approach, Bible, book, books, church, class, controversy, Emergent, emerging, faith, feminist, gender, God, history, jesus, privilege, race, racism, sex, sexism

CultureCast: Game Church, Jason Collins and Driscoll

May 14, 2013 by Bo Sanders 1 Comment

game-church-630x325

Our guest this week is Drew Dixon, the editor-in-chief of GameChurch.com. Drew talks to us about video games, and their value within faith and culture.

Later, in the Echo Chamber, the gang discusses Jason Collins, the first NBA player to come out of the closet. Then we talk about Mark Driscoll, and his latest controversy, which involved talking about how blowjobs are biblical. Did he say anything about men performing oral sex on women? He did not. Christian is annoyed by that, and Amy thinks Mark Driscoll is physically attractive, which was news to us.

We also touch on Bitcoin, some hippy protestors outside Amy’s church office, and this leads me to ask how Amy deals with annoying people. There are some vague Recommendations, as well, though you’ve probably heard them.

Listen with the player below, or subscribe on iTunes for free HERE.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: CultureCast, latest

Call In Challenge: the Church & the World

May 14, 2013 by Bo Sanders 2 Comments

On the most recent TNT, Bo threw out a theory that the dichotomy between ‘Church & World’ doesn’t work well anymore. Facade of St. Vitus Cathedral

Part of the thought came from  the book Rethinking Christ and Culture: A Post-Christendom Perspective by Craig A. Carter which revisits Niebuhr’s influential 1951 work “Christ and Culture”.

Part of it came from The Argument Culture: Stopping America’s War of Words by Deborah Tannen, and part of it was a critique of  The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer In Christian Ethics by Stanley Hauerwas as well as Luther’s famous construct of the  ’2 Kingdoms’.

The main point of contention is that what is now called ‘culture’ is a byproduct of Christendom (part of the church) and is therefore not the same thing that Paul was writing about in the New Testament. The church and the world are not entirely alien to each other. The church is filled with people from the culture and the culture is deeply impacted (or has been) by the church.

So when we quote passages like Romans 12: 1-2 to be not conformed to the world, we have a messier delineation of those categories – precisely BECAUSE they have bled into each other so thoroughly throughout history.

Callid had a different take on the issues as a Quaker. I hope that you will listen to the episode and give us your take!

What do we do with these categories in the 21st century? Go to the homepage and use the SpeakPipe on the right hand side of the screen to leave us an MP3 message for an upcoming TNT.

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: church history, latest, thinking Tagged With: Bible, book, books, church, Culture, God, Hauerwas, history, jesus, Niebuhr, Stanley Hauerwas, world

God Is Not Like Me

May 12, 2013 by Bo Sanders 11 Comments

I grew up in a tradition that said I should be, as much as possible, like Jesus.  I get that – and I try to do so.

Yesterday at the Loft LA I had the privilege to say 3 things (among many others) about God:

  1. God is Black (from James Cone)
  2. She Who Is (from Elizabeth Johnson)
  3. God is a Fag ( from Bernard Brandon Scott)

It is interesting because I am none of these three things! I am not black, a women, or homosexual. It is interesting then to present these images of a God who is very much different than I am – even as we, as a community, are being conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29).  money_and_god

It is important that we acknowledge that God is not on the side of ‘the powers’ but of those in need of liberation – that it is equally as accurate and as inaccurate to call God ‘She’ and it is to call God ‘He’ – and that according to 2 Corinthians 5:21

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

This is a topsy-turvey business.

Over the last 20 years of ministry I have noticed a somewhat unsettling trend that in order to be like God, I have had to move away from many of the natural strengths that ‘God gave me’.

  •  While I love to be at center stage in the spot light with a microphone – I am fascinated with the cell group, house church, and small group model of church. As a pentecostal, I am obsessed with how the Spirit of God is at work in the People of God.
  • While I am a big, hairy, muscular man – I am convinced that feminist theologian are right and that Christian history does not accurately reflect the will and mind of God for the world that God loves so much (John 3:16).
  • While I am white guy – I am writing my dissertation on ‘White Privilege’ and hoping to confront some of the systemic racism that will not do as we move into the 21st Century.

So while I attempt to be more like God, I am very aware that God is not all that much like me. 

This is an important distinction. As C.S. Lewis said in his poem “A footnote to all prayers”  (it references Pheidias who was  a legendary statue maker in the ancient world):

He whom I bow to only knows to whom I bow
When I attempt the ineffable Name, murmuring Thou,
And dream of Pheidian fancies and embrace in heart
Symbols (I know) which cannot be the thing Thou art.
Thus always, taken at their word, all prayers blaspheme
Worshipping with frail images a folk-lore dream,
And all men in their praying, self-deceived, address
The coinage of their own unquiet thoughts, unless
Thou in magnetic mercy to Thyself divert
Our arrows, aimed unskilfully, beyond desert;
And all men are idolators, crying unheard
To a deaf idol, if Thou take them at their word.

Take not, O Lord, our literal sense. Lord, in thy great
Unbroken speech our limping metaphor translate.

When we pray, we by nature blaspheme – all of us. The reality is that language , by its nature, means that words are provisional. When the Hebrew Testament speaks of God as a ‘King’ or Martin Luther writes a hymn declaring “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” … these are analogies. They are metaphors. They are temporary place holders.

Anything that we say about God is (in the apophatic sense) both illustrative and, at the same time, not exactly all that accurate. We would do well to get used to saying :

“God is like X … and that, of course, is not exactly true.”

Philippians 2 is helpful at this point. The ‘Kenotic’ Move of Christ self-emptying and descending for the purpose of service, exhorts us to not hold onto anything too tightly (clinging/grasping) but to empty our certainty and expose all of our assumptions to that which is not natural to us. Not an easy task!

If we acknowledge, then, that all language is provisional… that it is just a accurate and as inaccurate to call God she or he… that any prayer is at some level blaspheming … and that I am called to be like God – though I know that God is not exactly like me … then I can begin a kenotic journey of recognizing God while releasing God from my pre-conceived notions.

This is the dynamic journey of faith: to recognize  the full moon and the new moon, the high tide and low tide, the Fall and the Spring, the ebb and the flow, the fall and the rise of all that I am familiar with and and all that I am ignorant about. That is what we talk about when we talk about God.

Rob Bell puts it this way:

When we talk about God, then, we’re talking about something very real and yet beyond our conventional means of analysis and description.

The Germans, interestingly enough, have a word for this: they call it grenzbegrifflich. Grenzbegrifflich describes that which is very real but is beyond analysis and description.

When I’m talking about God, I’m talking about your intuitive sense that reality at its deepest flows from the God who is grenzbegriff.

Bell, Rob (2013-03-12). What We Talk About When We Talk About God (Kindle Locations 767-772). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

I would love your feedback and reflections.  

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: bible stuff, books, church history, conversations, emergent, engaging, latest, living, post-something, quotes, sermon, thinking Tagged With: Bernard Brandon Scott, Bible, book, books, C.S. Lewis, church, Elizabeth Johnson, feminist, gay, God, homosexual, James Cone, jesus, kenosis, Phil 2, prayer, Rob Bell, sin

TNT: Jim Wallis, the Church and the World

May 10, 2013 by Bo Sanders 10 Comments

In this episode: Tripp talks with Jim Wallis about the Common Good and being on God’s side, then Bo and Callid chat about the church and the world.Wallis

The four books that come up in this episode are:

On God’s Side: What Religion Forgets and Politics Hasn’t Learned about Serving the Common Good by Jim Wallis

The Argument Culture: Stopping America’s War of Words by Deborah Tannen

The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer In Christian Ethics by Stanley Hauerwas

Rethinking Christ and Culture: A Post-Christendom Perspective by Craig A. Carter

 

 Let your voice be heard! Go to the ‘speak-pipe’ on the home page and let us know what you think about ‘the church and the world’ – we will use it on the TNT in 2 weeks.

 

We want to thank our sponsors this month:

 

Seattle

Check Out These Most Awesome Sponsors

 

 

 

Claremont

This place will turn Bo into Dr. BoDaddy

The Resources of Fuller Theological Seminary for Pastors & the Local Church

The Resources of Fuller Theological Seminary for Pastors & the Local Church

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*** If you enjoy all the Homebrewed Christianity Podcasts then consider sending us a donation via paypal. We got bandwidth to buy & audiological goodness to dispense. We will also get a percentage of your Amazon purchase through this link OR you can send us a few and get us a pint!***


Subscribe on iTunes Here!

Subscribe on iTunes!

Subscribe on iTunes Here!

 

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: engaging, latest, politics, thinking, TNT

When Total Depravity is Totally Unhelpful

May 8, 2013 by Bo Sanders 17 Comments

I was asked to review a blog-post by Donald Miller called “New Research May Change Your Views on the Depravity of Man”. This is not something I would normally do, but I took a look at it and found a couple of interesting glitches in the thoughts that were expressed. Pastor Holding Bible

 

Nerd Alert: Disclaimers

Anytime a free-will person – and I am a Wesleyan – even brings up any Calvin-influenced theme, it is inevitable that real Calvin fans are going to object by saying ‘if you really understood Calvin …’.  So let me just say that I am talking about the street-level average person in the pew using diluted concepts they have inherited. 

I know that Donald Miller is not a theologian. He is however a very public voice that is comfortable utilizing theological words and ideas. 

 

Total depravity is a completely unhelpful concept in the 21st century. It has accumulated so much baggage and has become so convoluted in it’s common use that is entirely unclear and totally unhelpful for any meaningful contribution.

Total depravity in it’s contemporary usage – like we see with Miller’s post – is at best an a priori category that one crams data into to mold it to the form. At worst it is, to borrow from Zizek, like the person who walks into a house that has a horseshoe over the door frame and assumes that it is the horseshoe’s power that keeps the house safe.

Never mind that there are houses still standing that have no horseshoe above the door – as well as houses that had horseshoes that are no longer standing.

Total depravity is totally unhelpful as a category of analysis. 

I would like to suggest three alternatives for our everyday conversation:

  1. As an initial concession, replace total depravity with ‘sufficient depravity’. Forget the debate out the totality of humanity being partially depraved or whether each human in totally depraved: the word ‘total’ as well as the concept itself belongs several centuries back in an antiquated argument about substance.
  2. Move away from a substantial concern (are the we corrupted at the cellular level?) to a relational approach that asks ‘is the way that we interact and relate to each other warped and flawed?’
  3. Get out of the round-and-round argument of the reformed  cul-de-sac by adopting either an emergence or evolutionary analysis of ‘competing desires’ or ‘drives’.

 

The advantage of this third move is that it opens up the conversation beyond the tight constraints of inherited theological categories and begins to engage biological, social, and psychological realties of our contemporary world.

  • Why are we both attracted to the stability of a long-term committed relationship for stability and child-rearing as well as drawn to the adventure, variety and allure of other potential mates?
  • Why do I desire stability and peace and then at other times fly off the handle and want to disturb the whole system?
  • Why can I be so aggressive to some people then so defensive and protective of others?
  • Why do we tell the truth when it goes against my own best interest?
  • Why do I lie for a short-term gain that may endanger my own long-term health?

In the blog Miller asks:

What about the confusing middle where we both love and hate, lie and tell the truth, pursue justice but also ignore it? What does Total Depravity look like for us?

The answer to these questions is not ‘total depravity’. The answer is more along the lines of a ‘non-zero game’ of mutuality, social synergy and personal prosperity within the common good.

I would love you thoughts on the original Miller article or my suggestions here. 

 

 

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: latest, thinking Tagged With: Bible, blog, book, books, donald miller, sin, theology, total depravity

Revelation of Darkness LIVE Event: Taylor’s F-it Theology, Rollins reaches behind the curtain

May 8, 2013 by Bo Sanders 3 Comments

PeterThis is the first half of the LIVE event featuring Rob Bell that was held at the Monkish Brewing Company.

Barry Taylor takes us on a whirlwind tour – and even though you can’t see the slides – the message comes through loud and clear! Warning: explicit language.  Then Tripp sits down to talk it through with him.

Peter Rollins does his magic and Bo gets to ask him some practical questions.

If you like these convos then check out the best snippets in the video curriculum developed that night titled ‘The Revelation of Darkness.’

Special thanks to our 3 sponsors for the evening: The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, Fuller Seminary and Claremont School of Theology 

 

 

 

Seattle

Check Out These Most Awesome Sponsors

 

 

We are sooooo grateful to our sponsors, Monkish Brewing Company, & Spencer Burke at Missionsoulutions for their help in putting this together. You can get the videos HERE.

Claremont

This place will turn Bo into Dr. BoDaddy

The Resources of Fuller Theological Seminary for Pastors & the Local Church

The Resources of Fuller Theological Seminary for Pastors & the Local Church

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*** If you enjoy all the Homebrewed Christianity Podcasts then consider sending us a donation via paypal. We got bandwidth to buy & audiological goodness to dispense. We will also get a percentage of your Amazon purchase through this link OR you can send us a few and get us a pint!***


Subscribe on iTunes Here!

Subscribe on iTunes!

Subscribe on iTunes Here!

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: features, podcast Tagged With: barry taylor, book, books, darkness, Live Event, peter rollins, Rob Bell, theology
«Older Posts

Search

Subscribe via iTunes

 


Support the brew

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2013 ·Delicious Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in