Accepting a Job Offer to Teach

When I started down this road toward the PhD some 4+ years ago, one of the first questions I received from my mentor (before I was accepted into the program) was if I had a job waiting for me at the end of the program. When I told him I did not, his next question was an inquiry into why I was doing this. It was a good question - one that has been asked of me often. There are a few answers:

1. This has been the desire of my heart since I was around 30 years of age. Family responsibilities, ministry opportunities, money, and fear were the predominant reasons for not doing this work earlier in my life.
2. Pastoral ministry is a grind. After three decades it had taken a toll. I was more than willing to continue on but I knew it would be a tough road for both me and my wife. I needed a new focus and a new set of goals.
3. I found when I entered seminary that I loved education. This was not true during my college years. I was there to experience as much as I could on the social end and to obtain the degree. Getting good grades or amassing knowledge and understanding were not my top priorities. I was fairly smart with a good memory and the ability to read and write fairly well, so I got through. When I went to seminary, everything changed. I was motivated to learn. That passion has never left me.
   
4. Most of all, I felt called of God to do this. As sure as I was about my calling to the pastorate, I felt I was called to do this. That was all I really needed.

Like everyone else, you seek confirmation of your decisions. You look to see the hand of God working in ways that make you feel certain that you are walking in the path God has chosen. There have been many along the way. At Fuller, everything I have done and all the opportunities I have had have confirmed that this is the road for me; this is what God has called me to at this point in my life.

The big hurdle to get over at the end of your PhD journey is not the dissertation (that is monumental enough) but whether or not you can get a job at the end of the process. Will anyone hire someone my age just coming out of the PhD program? It is a real question. Positions in homiletics at the seminary level are limited. Those who have been at their schools for a while have tenure and will stay there for their careers. Not many come open every year.

Back in the Fall I started applying for jobs. I got a few notices back saying, "no thank you" - some were thoughtful enough to send a letter. One school sent a form email. Another school acknowledged my application but never contacted me again. It's all part of the process. You can't get discouraged. I didn't and felt encouraged to continue. In the past two weeks I have been in contention for two jobs. By contention, I mean that I made the first cut. I interviewed for one and was prepared to send more materials for the other. This past Friday I received notice that I was being offered a job. I was thrilled. I have accepted the job. Here, at the end of the process, someone has taken a chance on me to teach homiletics and speech communication at their institution. I am humbled by their confidence in me. It has validated the sense of being led by God through this whole process.

So, beginning in July, I will be preparing for the Fall to teach Homiletics and Speech Communication at Princeton Seminary. It is a position as a Post Doctoral Teaching Fellow. My contract is for two years. For an old New Jersey boy, it is a chance to go home and have the incredible opportunity to teach at an Ivy League institution. Joanie and I are grateful for your prayers and support. It is always comforting to see the signs along the way.

Interview for Post Doctoral Degree

Tomorrow morning (Thursday April 1) I will be interviewed for a Post Doctoral Fellowship from Princeton Seminary. I feel very honored to be considered for such an important fellowship. It would be for 2 years and involve teaching homiletics, speech, and/or worship classes at the introductory level - and maybe a class or two at the elective level. For those who read this, please pray for me. Whatever happens, Joanie and I are confident that, having brought us this far, God is going to provide and lead into the future.

Super Bowl Prediction

Well, I might as well join in the prognostication game. Everyone does it. Even monkeys and pigs have done it. Some guys get paid a lot of money to do this. I wish I was one of them. Anyway, here is my analysis:

1. The game will be more of an offensive shootout than a low scoring, defensive game. In this way it should favor Indianapolis. In part because the Saints defense is not rated very high verses the pass (they are in the 20's in total teams in the NFL). The Saints defense lives and dies with their ability to create turnovers. Manning is playing too well to fall into that trap.
   
2. The Colts defensive injuries have concentrated on DL Dwight Freeney's ankle problem. It is a grave concern. However, I am more worries about DB Jerrod Powers being injured. The defensive backfield of the Colts is already depleted (Powers is not the normal starter). If you are down to your third stringer and have to go to nickle and dime packages against Brees with inexperienced players, he will chop you up.
3. The Saints defense wants to hit Manning and put him on the ground. That requires blitzing. Manning will kill you when you blitz. Plus, the Colts offensive line does not give up that many sacks. If Manning stays upright it will be a long day for the defense.
4. The Colts have been here before (second time in four years). In the Super Bowl, experience makes a difference. The Colts have more experience in this kind of atmosphere than do the Saints.
5. The Saints beat the Vikings by 3pts. in overtime. They had the great advantage of playing at home in the Superdome. Their fans were great, rabid in their noise and support. The Super Bowl will be different. They will lose that advantage.
   

If you add all this up, the Colts should win. The Saints have the advantage of having a great story but the Colts have the advantages on offense, defense, and in the kicking game. Reggie Bush will make his presence known in the return game. However, that will not be enough to overcome the play of Peyton Manning. Colts will win 38-21.

Woodrow Wilson and Progressivism

I watched a weekend edition of Glenn Beck about the issue of progressivism and found the discussion most interesting. That led me to read some articles on-line that deal with Wilson and his concept of progressivism. One of the issues caught my attention particularly. It had to do with the view of progressives and the Constitution. One blogger, G. Stolyarov II wrote the following:

Wilson's progressivism challenged the very construction of the Constitution itself. Wilson considered the Constitution to be based on the old Newtonian scientific paradigm-whereby the Framers are alleged to have seen the government as "mechanical" and subjecting it to pre-planned checks and balances. But Wilson wished to base government on the principles of Darwin rather than those of Newton; he saw government as a "living thing" and believed that "no living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks and live." He wanted to replace the system of checks and balances with a system of cooperation among the branches of government.

Progressives believe that they must fundamentally change government and the way it operates. Part of the rationale behind this is that humankind is growing, changing, becoming closer to perfection. It is this idea that intrigued me. Largely because it has a theological basis. One of the primary differences between a theology based upon progressive principles and a theology based upon the Bible as the Word of God is that the Bible teaches that mankind is a sinner and that everyone sins. Even within the Holiness movement, which teaches that sanctification "perfects" believers, there is a real debate about whether we are perfected in this life or in the next. Progressive theology believes that the development of human beings is largely a task given to us. We must act holy (i.e. acts of service, compassion, kindness) and that human beings have the capacity to become greater, more closely aligned with perfect action, even though they are hopelessly entwined in their sins. In other words, progressive theology believes we are getting better as humans and more conservative theology says that humanity is the same today as it was in Biblical times.
One of the ways this has been played out is in the theology of the second coming. There used to be a popular idea called, "post-millennialism." In this theology, the world was going to get better and better, more and more Christian, until the gospel would reach and impact every person and, at that moment, Jesus would return to rule over a Christian world. You can still see some vestiges of this in pre-millennial thought when it talks about reaching the whole world (usually as an appeal for funds to support their TV ministry) before Jesus can return. Another way it comes up is in the actions of human beings. For instance, the recreating of Israel as a nation is a key issue, the Battle of Armageddon has to take place in a certain way with certain nations in conflict, etc. All these actions are initiated by human beings and they make God's will come about. By the way, no one believes in post-millennialism any more. The world is not getting better. Sin has not changed. The church still has a huge mission.
Another way the discussion intrigued me was the way Progressives dismiss the Constitution because it is an old document. Progressives look to the future not the past for understanding. This is the same argument that is brought against the Bible. It is 2,000 years old. What does it have to say to a modern world? As a Practical Theologian, I believe that the church gets itself in trouble when it either leaves the Bible out of its practice or leaves the current actions of the Holy Spirit out of the equation. Both are important for how we understand the will of God. Fortunately, God has determined that he will not ask us to do the will of God while violating the word of God. Both are in harmony. For those who leave the Bible behind, there is a high price to pay for that kind of "progressivism." It sounds as if we are progressing but in reality we are leaving behind truth as it has been revealed. Fundamentally, that is something I cannot accept either politically or theologically. I still believe it is hard to improve on the Constitution and the documents of the Founding Fathers (though they can be added to rather than thrown out) and that it is hard to improve on the Word of God (though our witness and testimony can add to its power and understanding).

The Rule of Faith

I've been reading some early church history for a book idea. One of those early church fathers that I have been reading is Tertullian (160-c. 220). Tertullian was from North Africa, which at the time was a major center of Christian thought and church growth. He is considered the first of the "Latin Fathers" (early church leaders and thinkers who wrote in Latin rather than Greek - the tongue of the New Testament). It was Tertullian that helped to develop the Rule of Faith. What is the Rule of Faith? Well, that is what this column is about.
The Rule of Faith (regula fidei) was the development of what the church would later call creeds. It was a statement of Christian belief, theology, and doctrine that became the norm against which heresies were then judged (Readings in Christian Thought by Hugh T. Kerr, p. 38-39). When Christians were tempted to go down a heretical doctrinal road, it was the Rule of Faith that prevented them from taking the road of falsehood. Tertullian was the first to really consider and develop the importance of such a guiding statement. Actually, it may be better to let Tertullian express this in his own words.
"The Rule of Faith (apostolic tradition; creed) - to state here and now what we maintain - is of course that by which we believe that there is but one God, who is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced everything from nothing through his Word, sent forth before all things; that this Word is called his Son, and in the Name of God was seen in divers ways by the patriarchs, was ever heard in the prophets and finally was brought down by the Spirit and Power of God the Gather into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in here womb, was born of her and lived as Jesus Christ; who thereafter proclaimed a new law and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles, was crucified, on the third day rose again, was caught up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father; that he sent in his place the power of the Holy Spirit to guide believers; that he will come with glory to take the saints up into the fruition of the life eternal and the heavenly promises and to judge the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both good and evil with the restoration of their flesh." (Readings, Kerr, p. 41)

Now, it should be noted that I come from a non-creedal tradition that has not used the creeds as part of its liturgy or discipleship process. However, my tradition is also deeply concerned about the issues of doctrine and theology. That provides and interesting and somewhat conflicting experience. How do you talk about the doctrine of the church and the doctrine of the early church without talking and teaching the creeds (Rule of Faith)? As a matter of fact, the creeds and the Rule of Faith were really designed to prevent the church from teaching wrong doctrine adn theology (heresy). You would think that we would embrace the creeds rather than create some distance between us and them. However, the reason that my tradition has been hesitant to embrace the creeds as a part of our worship really has to do with the fact that we believe the Bible should speak for itself. Reducing the teaching of scripture to a statement, however detailed, should not substitute for the study of the Word itself. With this I heartily agree. However, I understand the importance of the Rule of Faith.
If we are disconnected from the teaching of the apostles and the early church fathers, we are in danger of preaching and teaching things that are not a part of the church's teachings. If we are distanced in any way from the teaching of the Word we can be in grave danger of teaching tradition rather than the Word. What is the solution? To recognize that the Rule of Faith is different from the use of creeds in worship. The Rule of Faith is an appropriate study of the teaching and understanding of the early church, including the teachings of the New Testament writers. As with anything, it is the moderation of using the Rule of Faith that is crucial. The Rule of Faith dare not substitute for the Word but it may help explain the Word. After all, the Holy Spirit was working in the early church as well as working in the Church today.

Arguing with Atheists

Brit Hume from FoxNews caused quite a stir last Sunday when, in a segment about Tiger Woods future, he suggested that Tiger needed to turn to the Christian faith for the forgiveness he so sorely needs. It set off quite a firestorm of anti-religious comments from around the Net and the TV. It is so rare to hear someone in the media talk about Jesus Christ in any way that is not disparaging that I found it refreshing and amazing. Tonight, I went on YouTube to see how others were reacting and found a site called "Atheist Media Blog" that posted it. As you might imagine, the comments were quite "colorful." The language was beyond salty and the comments nearly universally negative toward faith, belief, God, and Christianity in particular. So, I spent about an hour chatting with those who responded. As a result, I learned some things that might be helpful to many of us. Here are a few:

1. People were angry at Christianity because it had failed them. One guy talked about getting hooked on cocaine through his youth group. Several relayed the issue of pedophilia priests or TV evangelist moral failures. To them, this discredited the message of Jesus. I guess the old adage is still true, "Don't tell me what you believe, show me."
2. We are an angry society, polarized along conservative and liberal lines. Some even called Hume a fundamentalist, revealing by this that any religious belief that is taken seriously is fundamentalist, narrow and bigoted. While this is sad to hear and, on the face of it false, it is a prevailing thought among many who have not been exposed to real Christianity or a true, practicing believer. Most have only seen organized religion and the falsehood of those who believe but do not live.
   
3. Hume made a blunder in his analysis, comparing the values of Christianity and its theology of forgiveness to Buddhism (which he suspected was Tiger's religious upbringing, based on his Mother's religious affiliation) which Hume thought offered little in terms of forgiveness. His advice to have Woods turn to a Christian faith were well placed, but he could have left out the Buddhist comparison. It became grist for the gristmill on the blogs.
4. Many seemed surprised that anyone, let alone a newsman, let alone on a Sunday Political Forum would choose such a venue to espouse a religious conviction. I found that argument astounding and suggested that offering advice was the gruel of political opinion forums and that Hume was exercising a perfectly valid idea for such a program. While there were some reasoned replies, most simply said, "Oh yea, well Jesus Christ can . . ." You get the picture.
5. I was not the only Christian responding. However, most could not offer a reason for their belief. They ended up saying, "Oh yea, well Jesus Christ can . . ." Well, you get the picture. They had good intentions but little to offer to further the conversation.

I think believers still have a responsibility to engage the culture. It is not always easy nor is it always productive. However, if we do engage, we have to offer more than platitudes and zingy one liners. Paul reasoned with the Stoics in Athens and offered an argument for the reality of Jesus Christ. In this ever increasing secularized soceity, we had better find a way to do the same.

Preparing for the Sabbath

Tomorrow is Sunday. How am I preparing for the Sabbath? The same way most everyone else does. I have done little to nothing to prepare! In North American culture, the major preparation for Sunday worship is getting up and getting dressed; driving to the church; sitting down in the pew; being there. In our culture, it is not the responsibility of the parishioner to prepare for worship but it is the task of the church to get me ready to worship. How does the church prepare me? Well, most of it is the task of the worship leaders. Whoever starts the service or greets me at the door has as much to do with my preparing for church as I do. Preparing is akin to motivating. If you wonder why Joel Osteen is so popular while his sermons are pop psychology rather than biblical depth, it is because he motivates. He is upbeat, excited, and engaging. He is encouraging others to worship.
The tragedy of all of this is that it is not the task of the leader to either motivate or prepare the parishioner for worship. That, my friends, is up to you. You are the one with the relationship. You are the one with the need to worship and draw close to God. Imagine someone saying to you, "Do you love your wife? Good, then she should motivate you to come and talk to her." I don't think that would go over well on Valentine's Day or her birthday. No, each of us has a responsibility to prepare to come into the presence of the Lord. The High Priest used to go through an elaborate ritual of washing and dressing before going into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. The OT worshiper would have to go through a whole ritual of preparation for their offering before actually sacrificing the animal. Those journeying to Jerusalem for worship would sing the Psalms on the way. In the NT the church would gather, eat, pray, sing, and then get down to worship. When Paul and Silas were stuck in prison they prepared for the earthquake by singing and worshiping before the Lord.
Preparing is not the function of the worship leader, pastor, or church musician. Preparation is up to you and me before we get to church on Sunday. While I was in Tanzania in November, the participants in the conference attended some Tanzanian Lutheran Churches. Since there are few folks who own cars in Tanzania, most walked to church. In one case, over 300 people walked an hour up Mt. Kilimanjaro to attend a worship service. The walking was part of the worship. It was preparation.
So, tomorrow (or in preparation for the next Sabbath day coming up) make sure you do something to get ready for worship. Read a devotional; spend a few minutes in prayer; have some quiet time; read the scriptures early on the Lord's Day. Preparation is all up to you. Everything else is up to the Holy Spirit. Be prepared.

Down Time

One of the least understood areas of ministry is "down-time." Ministers are notorious for not taking vacations; for working (or being expected to work) long hours; working on weekends (Sunday is, after all, a real work day for pastors); and being available to their constituents 24/7. A December 12, 2009 article from the Kalamazoo Gazette says, "Pastors, by nature tend to feel indispensable," said the Rev. Ken Baker, who has been lead pastor at Third Christian Reformed Church for 18 years. "We’re not busier than other people — everyone is busy — but we tend to excuse our busyness under the cloak that it’s OK, because it’s holy work." The article speaks to the importance of taking a Sabbath rest, something that pastor's rarely do.
In my last pastorate, I worked for 10 years without taking a real break. The leadership of the congregation saw the burnout that was taking place and gave me a sabbatical leave for the summer. It was not without controversy. Those working 40 hour jobs tended to wonder why a pastor should get a three or four month break with pay. By the time I got back from the sabbatical, forces were at work to undermine my position, much of it being fueled by my absence. No wonder pastors are hesitant to take a Sabbath rest! I heard of one pastor who had a business meeting take place while he was away on vacation. The meeting was to hire an associate pastor. Everything was in place, so the pastor went on vacation. When he came back he found that the congregation had not voted on the associate. They wondered why they should hire an associate when they really were questioning the ministry of their present senior pastor. Within months, the senior pastor was on a more "permanent" vacation. Such fears are legendary in pastoral circles. It fuels the desire of many pastors not to be away from their pulpits very long, if at all.
Since matriculating to Fuller and doing my PhD, I have had a break from pastoring. My role with two congregations here in Southern California has been as an interim and on a limited role. I have not had the pressures of the normal pastoral role. However, in doing the PhD I have worked hard and finished my preliminary work in 3 1/2 years, an extremely quick pace. I have not taken off a quarter since I arrived in 2006. I have taken classes, seminars, and taught during that time in addition to being an interim and writing my dissertation. I am ready for a break. Since I turned in my dissertation on December 11, I have been relearning how to relax. During the last weeks of my dissertation writing, I found myself in the car driving to worship on Sunday. It was during that drive, stuck at a red light, that I realized I had not been out of the apartment since returning from worship the previous Sunday. Such is the life of the PhD student!
With Joanie recuperating from hip replacement surgery, I have found myself once again stuck in the apartment. However, it is a much different pace. I've watched some TV, a few movies, and played board games with Joanie. This is the first time I have written anything at all in several weeks. It feels good to take a break. Everyone needs a Sabbath rest. If you can't get it on Sundays, find a way to get it somewhere else. Your health (mental and physical), your spiritual life, and your family will respond positively to a little "down time."

A Christmas Present

When we first moved to Pasadena in the Summer of 2006, my wife had just been diagnosed with arthritis in her left hip. At the time, we thought it was bothersome but not serious. We could not have been more naive. Joanie found a job teaching music at a private Christian school across LA and commuted for the next two years. By the time her first full-time semester was completed, her hip had become acute. She finally got a doctor's appointment in January and saw a specialist by February. The diagnosis? She needed a hip replacement. It was quite shocking. The other news was equally shocking. Her other hip (which did not hurt) had arthritis and would need to be replaced in a few years.
So, for the last three and a half years, Joanie has struggled through a hip replacement, physical therapy, one leg longer than the other, an emergency appendectomy, and the slow deterioration of her "good" hip. Finally, on Tuesday (December 22) Joanie entered the hospital and had a second hip replacement. Our insurance with the school is going to run out soon (since I have finished writing the dissertation and am no longer a full time student) so we needed to get it done soon. Tonight (Christmas Eve) I wheeled her out of the hospital and into a car only 48 hours after having a new hip implanted. As I write this, she is resting comfortably on a day bed in our living room. She is my Christmas present.
I am amazed at how modern medicine makes possible the impossible. If Joanie had been born at the same time as her mother or grandmother, she would be spending her later years as an invalid, as did my grandfather. Instead of being confined to a bed, she is resting in one and plans to resume her 20 minute walking regime in a month or so. But I am most grateful to God who is the great healer of our whole being - our minds, bodies, and souls. Thanks, Lord, for a great Christmas present. First your son, Jesus in a manger. Now my wife, Joanie, at home in our apartment. It is a good Christmas.

The End of the Journey is in Sight

It has been a long, long time since I have blogged. I make no excuses. For the last 12-16 month I have been writing my dissertation. As of last Friday, December 11, 2009, I have completed the task and handed in the dissertation. This puts me on target for a June graduation. While the dissertation is written (277 pages, 295 with bibliography) there is much to do yet. It will be read by three different scholars over the course of the next several months. About five weeks from now I will receive it back from my mentor and will make any corrections (I'm sure there will be many) and do any re-writes (I hope there are few) that are requested or needed. After that, I make a new copy and give it to my second reader. The same process occurs and then a third reader, someone I do not yet know and who is not a member of the Fuller community, will read and critique it. After all the corrections are made, it will be signed off on by the readers and then it will be bound and placed in the library at Fuller.
I could never have done this without the loving and complete support of my wife, Joanie. She is the best. In spite of all that she has gone through (she had one hip replacement two years ago and will spend Christmas having the other hip replaced) she remains my biggest fan and unquestionable chief supporter. She is an amazing woman and I am more in love with her today than I was 35 years ago when we first wed. She should get a degree for all the papers she has read and the discussions she has endured.
I will be continuing at Fuller for the next several months as the process of dissertation review continues. I have several classes to teach in the Winter and Spring Quarters. I have accepted the opportunity to take on a larger pastoral role at Church of the Foothills. Our Associate Pastor, Dana Krull, has finished his degree and returned back East to attend Chaplain School for the Army. It leaves some work unfinished at the church and I will fill in the gaps. I will also be going over to Azusa Pacific University to see if I can catch on as an Adjunct next semester.
My mentor, Clay Schmit, is giving me several opportunities to write and be published. I am going to help edit a book entitled, A Teaching Hymnal. It will be a resource for seminary classes and chapels to encourage worship. I will also be looking to write another book between now and graduation. I am talking with some publishers about that opportunity.
To any and all who have followed this season of my life with interest, I thank you. It has been a long journey but the end is now in sight.

Overwhelming Texts

(The picture to the right is the International Mother's Day Shrine located in Grafton, W. Va.)
I listened to two sermons this past weekend. One was on Saturday night at a megachurch that I visited with some friends. The other was at my home congregation where the Associate Pastor preached. In both instances, the subject of the sermon was Mother's Day. Now, with all due respect to mother's and their children, it is hard to find Mother's Day in the bible. As a result, neither one of them were very successful in their sermons. It wasn't that what they said was bad (though the Associate did far better than did the staff member at the megachurch - far better!) but that what they said had more to do with their view of mothers, motherhood, and family than it did with who Jesus is or what the Christian faith is all about. Both of them employed scripture but in a way that made the text(s) ancillary to the real subject of their sermon - Mother's Day.
Now, don't get me wrong, I like Mother's Day. I am married to one and, counter to the rumors out there, I came from one. I think it is culturally important to celebrate Mother's Day. I'm just not sure it is crucial to preach about it each year in May. I say that knowing that the prevailing idea is that you have three times you cannot ignore in the pulpit - Advent, Easter, and Mother's Day. I guess I'm saying that it should be acknowledged, celebrated, and responded to in the service. However, I'm not sure it ought to be preached about each Mother's Day.
One of the problems with what my Associate Pastor called, "Hallmark holidays" is that they tend to overwhelm the text in preaching. Both preachers had great texts for Mother's Day, appropriate for the celebration. The megachurch staff member choose the story of Moses' birth and the Associate Pastor chose the text in Matthew 12 where Jesus does not receive his mother and brothers. Both were rich with possibilities about Mother's Day or some issue related to motherhood or family. Neither were really developed well. Again, the day overwhelmed the text. If there is one rule in preaching that I find violated consistently it is the one where you should pick and text and mine it for preaching material rather than impose on the text what you want to say. Holidays can overwhelm texts and turn potentially rich texts into pretexts for preaching something the preacher wants to say rather than what the Holy Spirit wants to say.

The Sad State of Dissent

Her name is Carrie Prejean and she is the reigning Miss California and the runner up for Miss America. As the judges were making up their ballots, each of the contestants answered a serious question. But, like so many of these situations, the answer they gave came off less than spectacular. Here is part of her reply:

Perez Hilton: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”

Carrie Prejean: “Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

Not a stellar reply. In the heat of the moment; in front of the cameras and the television audience; in front of a live audience; in the moment before what you hope will be the biggest moment of your life; in the excitement of a competition - you try and formulate an answer. You try and give a sense of your own self; a window into your values and beliefs. Maybe not the best, most reasoned argument I've ever heard but a true statement about her values and beliefs. She didn't put anybody down. She didn't ask God to kill all the gays. She didn't call lesbians sinners. No, she stated an opinion in a beauty pageant. They asked her what she believed and she told them. And then the firestorm caught on and the stakes got higher.

The man asking the question is described as a "famous celebrity blogger." He is an outspoken gay man who makes his living as a kind of paparazzi. He posts their pictures and blogs about the lives and loves of celebrities. When he gets to hard news (real news) he gets lost. He announced on his blog one time that Castro had died. He has been sued and reviled. Then he asked this question, got an answer he didn't like, and blogged vile things about Carrie Prejean. Suddenly, he's the hero and she's the villain.

It all sounds like a set up to me. He got the one person he wanted to ask the one question he wanted that would get the one response he wanted so the media could go bonkers about it. And it worked. In part, because of our prejudice against women, in part because of the cultures growing dislike of Christians and Christian beliefs, in part because California voted against gay marriage in November, and in part because the gay and lesbian lobby have boosted their media presence to ram through their agenda for gay rights.

Sadly, the voice of this issue has now become Carrie Prejean. She was unprepared for it on the night she asked the question and she is unprepared to be the spokeswoman for the cause. No one is. If you say you are against gay marriage you are libeled as a hate monger. If you say you are for it you are being tolerant. In this culture there is no room for dissent. If you oppose President Obama you are an obstructionist. If you believe in gun control you are rejecting the Constitution. If you speak out about your faith you are imposing your beliefs on others.

If I have learned anything during these last several years at Fuller it is that the Christian message is rarely popular. The disciples were originally in favor with the people but in short time, after Stephen's stoning, they grew out of favor. The Christian message is counter to the culture. We speak truth and, like Jesus to the Pharisees, we speak truth to power. In an age where everyone wants to be politically correct we have a message that is intended to rock the culture and speak prophetically to the politicians in power. We have joined faith with nationalism. Now, the nation is fighting back through its cultural changes. One rallying cry will be to "take back our nation." Maybe the better cry is "speak what we know to be true."

It's not the Prejean is failing to speak the truth. I believe she is. I would go even further to suggest that, if you take the Bible seriously (and I do) you cannot find a single instance in scripture where homosexuality is seen in a positive light. Not in the prescriptions against it nor in the characters who desire it. The Biblical view seems clear - homosexuality is a choice. If you choose to be gay, you choose against a Biblical injunction. That is your choice. God has given you that freedom. Once you've made the choice, you must also accept the consequences. That is, by the way, the same argument being made against Prejean and her comments. She now has to be responsible for them. So does Perez Hilton (whose real name is Mario Armando Lavandeira). So do I. So do you.