A few days ago, he posted the interview below with author/activist Tom Davis. You can read more background about Tom’s excellent work in this entry on Chris’ blog.

Tom Davis Interview from Chris Marlow on Vimeo.

• This month is the fifth anniversary of this blog. I haven’t been as consistent in sharing my thoughts here as I was in the early days, but the thoughts I’ve shared and comments of others have made this a significant part of our journey. I don’t agree with everything I’ve written, yet I know that much of what we are doing in Austin is shaped by ideas that formed as I typed these words. If I can find the time, I’m going to highlight a few posts from the archives that continue to shape how we are thinking and living today.
• This month is also the one year anniversary of our move to Austin. With that, I’m preparing another letter to mail out to our prayer and financial partners later this month. That’s left me reflecting on how the dreams that we shared a year ago are taking shape now. (If you’re not on our mailing list, let me know and I’ll add you.)
• Last week our family made a return visit to Seattle. It was good to spend time with familiar faces (though there were far too many of you we didn’t get to see in our brief visit). Of course, there was the constant question about how things are going or how we are doing. And in the midst of those conversations, I found myself very aware of the point of this post…

We are right were we need to be. We began a journey 5-6 years ago after spending a decade in the same place. It’s been a long season with a lot of transition…some of it hard, some of it fun, but most of it is beautiful in reflection. But out of all that thinking, praying, dreaming, wondering, and aching, I feel like God has brought us to the place we were being pointed toward.

That’s not to say we’ve arrived. Not at all. We are merely at the starting point of another journey. But it’s one that God has been shaping us for. I’m sure there is more thinking, praying, wondering, wondering, and aching ahead, but it will be done out of a defined context of shaping this church community in this place at this time.

Thanks for being part of what brought us here.

From my experience, pockets of Christianity are becoming more aware of this tension and there is less stereotyping happening. But there is still a long way to go and this is one of the most important conversations for churches to engage with, not in the next few years, but now.

When I received Love is an Orientation, by Andrew Marin, for review, I began reading as a skeptic. I feared it would be a watered down effort to say that Christians should be nice. But I finished reading it knowing that it was helping to bring the conversation to where it needed to be.

Andrew’s experience is not like my own and based only on a few friendships. As a straight Christian man, he has immersed himself in the GLBT subculture. Out of that experience, he started The Marin Foundation to help build bridges between Christians and the GLBT community.

The subtitle of the book is “Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community”. The tone of the book does that, and I hope it will be widely read.

Our Sunday gatherings for Austin Mustard Seed have had a number of different looks in the nine months we’ve been together. Sometimes, it’s been a matter of spending time talking and praying with each other after a particularly hard week. Some weeks have been very structured as I lead us through a more in-depth study of a Scripture text or theme. At times, we have just enjoyed getting acquainted with new faces that God has brought our way.

On Easter, we did something new for our community that has become a favorite Sunday rhythm for me. Rather than talk about the importance of the Easter holiday, or proofs for the Resurrection, or explain theological implications, we just…read the story. We opened a Bible to John 20, and passed it around the room. Adults and children alike read a few verses and passed it along.

Since Easter, we’ve used this same means of hearing Scripture more often than not. A shared reading, usually from the screen, followed by a time of discussion as we talk about how we are challenged, confused, encouraged, or troubled by what we read. Too often, Scripture is given a brief spotlight in a church gathering. Perhaps it gets an extended reading prior to a sermon, or maybe a few brief passages are raised in the course of a topical sermon. But I’m hungry to learn what it can look like when a community engages with the story of Scripture.

If it is part of the privilege and duty of each Christian to study scripture, and to read it devotionally, it is important that the wider church should be able to hear what individual readers are discovering in the text. Of course, not all private readings will come up with significant new insights; but many will. The church needs to facilitate, through small groups, and other means, this bring of particular viewpoints to the attention of the whole body, both so that the larger community may be enriched and so that maverick or clearly misleading readings can be gently and appropriately corrected. — NT Wright

This doesn’t, of course, mean less preparation for me. I still spend the same amount of time studying the text in advance, and usually have a few points of discussion in mind. I come prepared to engage questions about the text, or offer insights from the studies of those who have come before us. But the course of our group study is guided by how the Spirit in engaging the text with the hearts of those who are present.

I don’t know what this way of engaging the text can look like as our community continues to grow. But I know there is something with this that I hope we can always capture. I long to help shape a community to listens to the story of the Scriptures together, and learns from each other what it means to continue with God in the writing of that story.

Both of the quotes above were taken from The Last Word, by NT Wright. You should read it.

For those unfamiliar with Ehrman, he has an interesting background. A former evangelical, he was educated at Moody, Wheaton, and Princeton Theological Seminary. He describes his transition between these schools and his own progression from a very conservative view of Scripture to a, uh, not so conservative view. Some years later, Erhman did reject Christianity, though he describes that rejection in connection to the inconsistencies he sees between suffering in the world and the claims of the Christian God.

For the most part, Jesus, Interrupted serves as an introduction to the historical critical approach to understanding Scripture. Simply put, this approach evaluates Scriptures not as a sacred devotional text, but as historical documents that merit critical scrutiny. Erhman’s primary thesis is that most pastors learn about the historical critical approach, and the difficulties it brings to how we view Scripture. Yet, most lay people in church have no knowledge of this as pastors don’t talk about it. Jesus, Interrupted seems to be Erhman’s attempt to bring this conversation to a wider audience.

A few thoughts that came from my experiences reading the book:

• From what I understand, Erhman has a bit of a reputation at times of being somewhat condescending in his tone toward Christianity. I didn’t get that feel out of Jesus, Interrupted at all. I appreciated the tone with which he wrote the book.
• I also appreciate the attempts to present a historical-critical understanding of Scripture at a more popular level. I think it is an important conversation to bring in to churches. I’m not aware of a book that has attempted to do this from a Christian scholar at a popular level…thus enforcing one of Erhman’s main points.
• Because the book was written at a popular level, there is the danger of overgeneralizing, and I think Erhman did so. After reading the book, one would be left with the impression that all conservative Evangelical Bible scholars don’t see any inconsistencies in the Scripture, and all non-Evangelical scholars see many and doubt the authorship of a good portion of the New Testament. The discussion simply can’t be reduced to those two camps with those two views.
• Ehrman’s approach seems to be hyper modern in that he only wants to view the Scriptures through a historical critical approach. I can respect this and think seeing Scripture as a historical text sheds a great deal of light on our reading. Yet I also think it is important to understand that the Scriptures weren’t written by people who even comprehended a rational modern way of thinking, and can’t be evaluated only in that light. To oversimplify my point, I wonder if this would be akin to only critiquing Edgar Allen Poe as very poor Haiku. The historical critical approach should not supersede attempts to approach Scripture as a sacred devotional text, and vice versa.

If there is a shortcoming to the book from a Christian perspective, it comes in the fact that Ehrman writes this as an agnostic scholar. I give him credit for saying that he didn’t become agnostic because of the material he is presenting. And he doesn’t demand that others do so. But, he also seem compelled to provide a way forward for someone who is just being introduced to this material. I suppose he is hoping that a reader will bring the conversation into their own faith circles…and he is probably right.

In the last decade, there has been a growing critique of the discipline of apologetics. And when apologetics becomes the loading up minds with a cannon of knowledge awaiting a battle, I share that critique. However, there is value to be had in wrestling with the questions of the nature and existence of God. (And particularly for me, the Judeo-Christian concept of God.) This wrestling best happens not with those who think alike, but with those who think differently.

To put it another way, apologetics should exist not as knowledge, but as dialogue — I am interested in what helpful dialogue should look like in the arena of difference. And for one who wants to engage in those questions, the format of a book like Deepest Differences offers a helpful exchange.

The book began as a conversation at a party between Jim Sire, a Christian writer and professor, and Carl Peraino, an atheist and retired biochemist. They decided to extend the dialogue to an email exchange, which formed the content of the book. I found the exchange tedious at times as they took their discussion to degrees beyond my level of interest. But it is helpful to see dialogue in action, to see mutual respect at work as these two spend as much time exploring where they differ as they do trying to convince the other.

I fear that Christianity tends toward being an echo chamber of voices bouncing our ideas back to each other … and not hearing the views of others. You may or may not be interested in this book because of the subject matter, but I hope you will be inspired to follow the example of these two authors in respectful engagement with those who don’t think like you.

I have grown weary, and leary, of large conferences that are impersonal and driven by the hype that happens on the stage. And while Q was centered on the presenters on stage, it was less about hype, and more about engaging with ideas. Each presenter (other than a few) was given 18 minutes to offer their thoughts around Church, Culture, Gospel, and Future. Most of the presenters had a follow-up talkback where we could engage with them in a smaller setting.

Here are a few impressions I was left with and ideas I’m living with:

• Andy Crouch’s presentation on Power, Privilege, and Risk has occupied my mind the most. Power is a complex issue, and Andy is making it accessible enough for us to engage with what it truly means. This will be an upcoming book that I think will be an important book for the North American church.
• After a few email and phone conversations with Shane Hipps, it was great to meet him in person. Shane’s presentation on the impersonal nature of technology evoked the most conversation among attendees. While Shane has a great message there, I hope he won’t be limited to being the “technology guy.” He is quite thoughtful, and I’m sure has valuable things to say to the church in other areas too.
• Shannon Sedgwick Davis became a hero to many, including me, because of her work with those in influence and in the margins around issues of global injustice and poverty.
• Tim Keel gave a helpful presentation called The Gospel Revisited. I remember sitting in a session at the Emergent Gathering about 5 years ago where Tim was met with a lot of resistance in the audience as he questioned our understanding of the Gospel. It was much different this time…I’m guessing Tim is more well spoken, and the audiences are more receptive five years later.
• Jon Tyson kicked off a panel discussion on unhealthy trends in the church by naming our loss of spiritual warfare and video venues. Unfortunately, spiritual warfare was lost in the ensuing dialogue about video venues….thus proving his point.
• Tyler Wigg-Stephenson gave an outstanding presentation on his dream to abolish nuclear weapons. Please, please visit the Two Futures Project and learn more.
• Gabe Lyons offered helpful thoughts on how the church needs to be countercultural rather than relevant. He portrayed being countercultural as a way of leading, rather than restraining, culture.
• If any discussion suffered from the 18 minute time limit, it was the dialogue on Uncovering Our Hidden Misogyny. I think this is a huge topic that could be easily dismissed by most based on the limited introduction.
• I’m left wondering what it would look like for Q to be shaped by more global voices. I understand that the emphasis on culture lends itself to North American thinkers. Yet, I wonder how the rest of the world could be seen not just as those who need resources from North America, but have something to speak into our culture and our understandings of church and gospel.

Devout Christians might be troubled by Stark’s analysis — Stark doesn’t the credit to a sweeping movement of the Holy Spirit. He doesn’t discount the supernatural, but he offers a practical and reasoned view of how Christianity grew. He cites a number of key factors, but I am struck by three in particular: the importance of relational networks, the role of women, and the way of life that Christians led and invited others into.

Perhaps the reason those three stand out to me is because they seem so important today. While the booming megachurches get most of the attention in North America, Christianity today is primarily growing through small and rapidly multiplying churches in southern Asia, Africa, and South America. And as I’ve heard these movements described, they seem to share similar traits to those mentioned by Stark that I have highlighted above.

In the concluding chapter, Stark summarizes his thesis with the words below. I believe that what was true for Christianity then can and should be true for Christianity today. And I hope that in the future, others will be able to look back and describe Christianity in the 21st century in the same way:

Central doctrines of Christianity prompted and sustained attractive, liberating, and effective social relations and organizations. I believe that it was the religion’s particular doctrines that permitted Christianity to be among the most sweeping and successful revitalization movements in history. And it was the way these doctrines took on actual flesh, the way they directed organizational actions and individual behavior, that led to the rise of Christianity.

In recent years, we have seen a renewed interest in the relationship between art and theology, and Fujimura offers a significant voice in that conversation. The book is a collection of essays loosely joined by the topics of faith, art, and culture, as the title suggests. While some books seem redundant after the first few chapters, the unique subject and fresh thoughts of each essay pulled me forward into every page turn.

What I appreciate most is the awareness that Fujimura displays of his soul and surroundings. He describes this awareness in the book’s first essay:

The process of creating renews my spirit, and I find myself attuned to the details of life rather than being stressed by being overwhelmed. I find myself listening rather than shouting into the void. Creating art opens my heart to see and listen to the world around me, opening a new vista of experience. This is the gift of the ’second wind.’ Such a state taps into what I now call eternal timefullness.

While I was able to engage and be shaped by his thoughts throughout, it was this awareness that challenged me the most. After finishing the final chapter yesterday, I closed the book and opened my journal. With infinite access to information and social connection, all of us would do well to be a little more connected to our own selves.