This Week

In Blogging

• 5 Things to Remember When Designing a Large Poster for Church
  This may be something only a few designers are interested in (particularly church designers) but it’s really no more than the guidelines I use for myself each time I make a big banner. Thanks to Cory for posting it.
• Results Only Blogging Environment
  Added to Daily Blog Tips this week, and a pretty good response overall.
• The Revolution of Inclusive Design
  I took a step out with this one, and tried to draw some connections between open applications and design.

In Websites

• 
  Southwest Alliance Church Website
  I helped Southwest, an up and coming church in Illinois, get their preliminary website online this past week. It’s simple and modest, but I think it will work really well for them right now. It’s also exciting that their Pastor is going to be blogging on a weekly basis, so I’m looking forward to coaching him through that.

A Lil’ Bit Older

• Resources for Video Blogging
  It is what it is. A big list of video blogging resources and information.
• Widen Your Blog for Goodness Sake
  Sort of a pet peeve/ranting post, but it generated some massive discussion that I was proud to have spurred.
• Why Transitional Doctypes are Better for WordPress Blogs
  Another slightly controversial post from early on at DBT, but I still stand by what I said.
• Side by Side: The Ustream.tv Redesign
  Because critiquing design is just fun.
• WP Text Ads Review
  This one really launched my whole “guest blogging” career (can you really call it that) so it holds a special place for me. Especially since ProBlogger is such a massive blog. How lucky was that?

Consider some of the events you receive chapel credit for. Now hold that thought for a moment.

On one level: yes, I did choose to come to Huntington. I could have gone nearly anywhere. I have to live with the consequences of my decision to opt for the rules, regulations and expectations of Huntington University. But at the same time – should I be silent? In the same way I am proud to be an American yet can criticize and try to improve this wonderful country, can I improve Huntington?

Better yet – can we improve Huntington?

There are chapel programs in so many Christian universities, and I’m not equipped to say how many have policies similar to Huntington’s. But there are some – at least a few – of these that don’t make attendance a requirement. By doing this the responsibility is truly put on the student. By doing this the school is put on the spot, to find speakers who will entice students into their auditoriums. By doing this (gasp!) students may exercise discernment.

Now back to my initial statements. I would argue that our chapel credits aren’t a measure of our spiritual maturity at all. Most students, I believe, would agree that those numbers don’t reflect our spirituality in any way. But I would go as far as to say that each chapel, good or bad, robs us of spiritual maturity. It reduces our spiritual freedom made alive in Christ to a duty. We begin to attach negative feelings with these experiences. Unfortunately our spiritual formation is, ironically, put in jeopardy.

By the way, I do sit in the back. And no, that doesn’t make me a bad Christian.

It is that season again: the season where all good Christian girls and boys sit around the table and talk about who is doing what for Lent. Popular choices include things like ice cream, fatty foods, and television. Not surprisingly, many of the things we give up are good for us to rid ourselves of anyway – bad habits, unhealthy diets, etc. Kind of makes the “giving up” process a little easier, does it not?

Part of me wonders what we should really be giving up during this time. What would truly be beneficial, in the Lord pleasing, kingdom serving sense of the word?

But honestly, and with all due respect, I do not care what you are doing for Lent.

This beautiful experience during the Lenten season gives us the opportunity – the blessing – of giving something to our Creator. In some sort of divine allowance we are actually allowed to approach the Almighty with a gift. Hopefully this gift is something of worth – maybe even something which we have valued more than God.

Consider a gift given to your closest friend, your parents, or better yet your husband or wife. Are you going to parade the information around, making sure everyone knows what you did for them? Better yet get in a circle (with them present, mind you) and begin to compare and rate your gifts. Weird, right?

I like to think about close relationships when I think about my relationship with God. There are a couple of reasons, but mostly I want my relationship with God to be a close one, a very intimate one. So the best I can do is to take as much truth from the relationships I experience and know well and use those concepts in my relationship with God.

So, basically, I will not be telling you what I am doing for Lent. And please do not tell me – especially if it is ice cream.

A small group of my colleagues today (which could probably be extended into a much larger group) were unsettled by today’s chapel speaker. I’m not one to name names, but let’s just say it was insulting to us on both an academic and a theological level.

Kingsley made a number of statements which made a group of us look up from our work (be it Greek translations or some other amusement) and turn our heads to the side.

Some people think that Christ gave up part of his omniscience when He came to Earth. But that’s just not the case.

Jeremy Kingsley

I’m not sure whether I agree or disagree (the Christological question hasn’t been something I’ve set to work on at any point – possibly because it doesn’t come across as all that alarming of a question) but I take issue with him based on principle. How can he brush aside an entire theological debate with the wave of his hand?

Kingsley’s entire talk was steeped what might be called a “youth leader’s” mentality. There was a very real sense of him saying “I’m going to use big words like omnisciencenow that you don’t know, so just pay attention, okay?” At one point he even took a moment to mock academic Christians by telling the chapel to “put their theological caps on” and “get ready to judge me.” His attitude toward educated Christians was probably due to his apparent lack of Christian scholarship, but I digress.

Chapel speakers at Huntington are notorious for being poor. I don’t mean poor like the I-can’t-buy-a-Big Mac-and-I’m-hungry kind of poor, I mean poor academically. Most speakers are “youth leaders” or at worst aspiring “youth leaders.” There isn’t much respect paid to actual Biblical or authoritative work on subjects; instead flowery and excessive emotional language is preferred.

This isn’t an isolated event – that’s the sad part. I only hope that not everyone in chapel took Kingsley’s word for it. I hope some students get angry about it and do some studying and find out the very real (and no, Kingsley, not stupid) options which exist as answers to Christological questions and questions on the nature of divinity. I hope students become concerned to the point that they start making noise about chapels. I hope students demand more out of their chapel program.

If we don’t become upset, if we don’t start talking about it – loudly – will anything ever change?

The American Heritage Dictionary says “inconsistency” means “the state or quality of being inconsistent.” Helpful, right? “Inconsistent” is defined as something which is “lacking in correct logical relation,” or “incompatible.”

By this definition, then, Huntington is inconsistent.

When dorms are policed and open dorms are held to certain times in order to restrain the hormones of college students and yet the parking lots, library, and baseball diamond aren’t policed, Huntington is being inconsistent.

Students are asked to sign away their right to smoke and to drink (as of age 18 and 21, respectively) when they are at Huntington. This is for the sake of the health of the temple. But when students are allowed to create daunting chocolate and sugar coated ice cream concoctions three meals a day – you guessed it – Huntington is being inconsistent.

Only movies rated PG-13 or below are allowed on campus. This is because we Christians are delicate beings and should not be caused to stumble from our walk with Christ. But the rating system used to distinguish what is allowable or not is taken from a secular rating system, namely the Motion Picture Association of America.

There is also the exception of The Passion of the Christ. Apparently an extremely violent and disturbing – yet still very controversial – Christian movie is acceptable.

Inconsistent.

A week ago open dorms was extended approximately five hours for the sake of the super bowl. That one is too easy.

Above all else, although Huntington claims to be an institution that values academic freedom in a Christian environment it is still willing to remove a groundbreaking theological mind for the sake of its own interests.

Maybe I’m just being a cynic. But either we take issue with these things or we choose to live a life of inconsistency. We can’t have it both ways.

If I have my way my kids won’t believe in Santa. I won’t teach them to believe in “him”.

Teaching kids to believe in Santa is lying to your children. I have a problem, in principle, with lying to my children. Do you?

Many believe that children need Santa in order to experience the true meaning of Christmas. Apparently the true meaning of Christmas includes the purporting of an imaginary figurehead of a pagan-influenced tradition.

I don’t mean to come across as a “scrooge.” I only mean to point out that the virtue of honesty is often overlooked for the sake of loyalty to a ritual that may not be the best thing to happen to Christmas – or Christians in general. I’m not saying my kids shouldn’t enjoy gifts at Christmas – giving is a good thing. They should also experience the joys of the season, much like children who believe in Santa. But these good things don’t require bad things – i.e. lying to children – and lessons of gift giving and being good can be taught through better, honest means. In other words, should we use dishonest means to reach desirable ends?

On the other hand, if we’re going to use Santa to benefit children why stop there? Why not endorse a campaign to create a fleet of imaginary characters to push children toward potty training or sleeping through the night?

I recognize that I may be wrong. Maybe these traditions are necessary. But I do mean to encourage those who are wiling to question the influences of culture and remove those which may not help us as we attempt to raise our children in a good Christian manner. That’s all.

Oh, and Merry Christmas.

What is the purpose of church, and how important is it to bring people in and keep them around?

Think carefully before you answer that one, because I’m not done. How far should a church be willing to go to bring someone in the door? Better yet, how far should a church go to keep them there?

Recently, at my church, we’ve thrown around the idea of putting on a fairly large production for Christmas this year. In the past we’ve done production-esque things (think lights and small effects, dramas, videos) but never anything as large as what could be in the works this year. For me, this brings up an interesting question: how entertaining should church be?

On the one hand, there is a common mentality: whatever it takes. Whatever it takes to bring people to Jesus, that’s what we’ll do. Whatever it takes to entice people into our doors, that’s what we’ll do.

The problem with that is it quickly becomes a situation where the “ends justify the means”. Is that ideal? What I mean is, even if we do get them in the door, are we held responsible for the means we use to do it? Maybe entertainment doesn’t belong in church. Maybe service shouldn’t be a show. Maybe instead of going for laughs and trying to compete with the short attention spans our spoiled culture has developed we should respect the reverence of liturgy and rely on it alone to speak to visitors.

Or maybe I’m going off the deep end. Maybe it’s a matter of new times and new strategies. Maybe it’s a time when we should, not throw out the rule book, but tear out a few pages.

Honestly, I don’t know the answer. I don’t know that there is an answer. What do you think? How much entertainment does it take to ruin a Sunday morning?

We should all be naked.

I spent last Friday night at Warsaw Community Church drinking in the words of Donald Miller (yes, the Blue Like Jazz guy) as he delivered his thoughts on the human condition. Don’t worry; he’s a wonderful public speaker.

Miller referred the audience to many of the conflicts we see in the world today and proposed that Genesis explains them all. But instead of looking at the fall the way most of us are used to hearing it explained, he presented a new idea. First of all, he concedes that the text allows for literal or non literal translation (he affirms the former). Then he draws attention to the odd references the author makes to the nudity of Adam and Eve found late in chapter two and early in three. He uses this to say that the human condition is explained in Genesis within a matter of paragraphs, where all of the writings of Freud failed. His point was this: before the fall, humans were naked and didn’t care.

What does it take to be naked and not care? Miller says that God’s love and acceptance was pouring into man in such great amount that man didn’t care whether or not he was naked. After the fall, however, man looked for that perfect acceptance from other men. They hid. They were ashamed. They desired acceptance.

Fast forward to today. We hide. We are ashamed. We desire acceptance.

So conflict, human struggle, confusing emotion, all of it stems from the fact that we can’t be naked without knowing it. The first line of this column may have made you laugh initially – but then again, Miller might just be on to something.

Please rise to recite the pledge of alleigance.

I refuse.

Pledging alleigance (read: adherence, devotion, obedience) to the flag is easy. We’ve all done it a number of times, probably since grade school. Like many of the creeds or prayers we say in church it’s easy to go through the motions and not put thought into the implications behind what we are saying.

What we are saying is that we devote ourselves to the flag; what is the flag? The flag stands for America and everything America stands for. Do you agree with everything America stands for? ”We” stand for: imperialism, an economy for the wealthy, unacceptable health plans, and a bipartisan and divided country.

Don’t call me a pessimist. This country can be great and I’m blessed to live here. But I don’t have to give my alleigance to the whole thing.

In regards to the religous implications of the phrase “Under God” that may evoke pride in one’s country among many Christians, I question the history behind the phrase. Before this turns into another piece on the constitutional security of such a phrase, keep in mind that it wasn’t added until the fifties during the communist scares – the words were added to draw a distinct religous line between America and the “evil Muscovites.” Do these words really qualify the pledge to such unwavering devotion, or are they only shameless political propaganda?

Don’t take my opinions as an attack on your own beliefs or fath (however misguided) in this country. Still, to those willing to consider: you are allowed to live in a country yet not devote ignorant or unwarranted trust to it. Please, if you feel you need to: rise, put your hand to your heart, and recite those words we all know so well.

I’ll stay put.