I jumped the gun on my Halloween post, but that’s ok. Enjoy the day! I’m taking it off from blogging….

Feedburner stats are down, Twitter was built wrong, and Google Chrome has fallen by the wayside. At least I have Someone who will never shut down on me, gotta love Jesus!

I gleaned the term “friendonomics” from Scott Brown in a Wired article he wrote about Facebook. In that article, he says,

Thanks to Facebook, I never lose touch with anyone. And that, my Friend, is a problem.

Hey, want to be my friend? It’s more than possible; it’s probable. Hell, we may already be friends—I haven’t checked my email in a few minutes. And once we are, we will be, as they say, 4-eva. A perusal of my Facebook Friend roster reveals that I, a medium-social individual of only middling lifetime popularity, have never lost a friend. They’re all there: elementary school friends, high school friends, college friends, work friends, friends of friends, friends of ex-girlfriends—the constellation of familiar faces crowds my Friendbox like medals on Mussolini’s chest. I’m Friend-rich—at least onscreen. I’ve never lost touch with anyone, it seems. What I’ve lost is the right to lose touch. This says less about my innate lovability, I think, than about the current inflated state of Friendonomics.

Yes, I know he said ‘hell’, so did Jesus — get over it. Aside from that, this raises a serious point. I’ve written about Facebook before, and I’ve even mentioned how you never lose touch with people using the service, but Brown really hit the nail on head when he said, “What I’ve lost is the right to lose touch.” He goes on to say:

“A friend may well be reckoned the masterpiece of Nature,” Emerson wrote, not bothering to add, “and like most things natural, friendship is biodegradable.” We scrawl “Friends Forever” in yearbooks, but we quietly realize, with relief, that some bonds are meant to be shed, like snakeskin or a Showtime subscription. It’s nature’s way of allowing you to change, adapt, evolve, or devolve as you wish—and freeing you from the exhaustion of multifront friend maintenance. Fine, you can “Remove Friend,” but what kind of [person] actually does that? Deletion is scary—and, we’re told, unnecessary in the Petabyte Age. That’s what made good old-fashioned losing touch so wonderful—friendships, like long-forgotten photos and mixtapes, would distort and slowly whistle into oblivion, quite naturally, nothing personal. It was sweet and sad and, though you’d rarely admit it, necessary.

And maybe that’s the answer: A Facebook app we’ll call the Fade Utility. Untended Friends would gradually display a sepia cast on the picture, a blurring of the neglected profile—perhaps a coffee stain might appear on it or an unrelated phone number or grocery list. The individual’s status updates might fade and get smaller. The user may then choose to notice and reach out to the person in some meaningful way—no pokes! Or they might pretend not to notice. Without making a choice, they could simply let that person go. Would that really be so awful?

I thought this was a neat idea about a ‘Fade Utility’, but aside from that, why has “friendonomics” become such an issue? I think a lot of people in my generation and younger migrate from Myspace to Facebook once they get a few years into college, in order to do away with the past, but often the old friends find you there, too. Myspace is even trying to replicate Facebook lately, with the creation of “Apps”, “People You May Know”, and other Facebook-cloned programs.

I think this causes a huge stunt in maturity for many Web 2.0 kiddies. And it’s beginning to stunt the growth of Busters and Boomers who are new to the technology as well, as they get caught up in the friend-o-drama of “friendonomics”. In real life, you simply “fall out of touch” with people, but in Web 2.0, you have to intentionally delete them as a friend. That causes a major crisis of conscience for many, and so they stay connected to hundreds (sometimes even thousands) of people whom they never interact with on a regular basis, aside from social networking antics such as “getting poked” or being invited to take part in some ridiculous application or cause.

What does this mean for Christianity 2.0? I really don’t think is a whole lot different from how the faith looks now, actually. What do I mean? Well, you show up for church on Sunday mornings, and there’s a whole slew of people you only interact with in that setting. In many cases, neither party really opens up to the other in a real and meaningful way, and they may even be annoyed by each other. Still, they continue to say “peace of the Lord” to one another every Sunday with a smile, never making any real connection. Take this over to the Web 2.0 realm, where now they’ve become friends on Myspace (or Facebook). They look at each others’ family photos, comment on one another’s walls on holidays and on each others’ birthdays, and they may even be sure to include them in their “top friends.” But what constitutes a “top friend”? And why so cordial with no real connection?

I’m not exempting myself here, I do it all the time — but I’m sick of it. My wife and I have been very blunt and authentic with people lately, and it’s not very popular. But you sure learn who your friends are quick. How can we be more blunt and “real” using Web 2.0? What can the church do to ensure that Christianity 2.0 isn’t a game of Schrades, where we all play our respective roles?

“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players; they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts.” –William Shakespeare

Church folks typically hide their sins and trade more noticeable sins for ones that are easier to hide. I think one of Satan’s best tactical deceptions has been to get God’s people to associate most sins with shame, guilt and embarrassment — and thus not share them. The worst part is that Satan has gotten church people to view people who struggle with sin more negatively. Most people in church will readily confess that they are sinful, but few can point to specific sins they struggle with or have been delivered from. Without real sin, there is no real Savior! But if your sin is real, then your Savior must be also! The reason we struggle with “dead churches” is that we have lost our gratitude — because we do not truly see ourselves as being sinful.

The Bible says to “confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective” (James 5:16). I don’t know about you, but I long for that healing, and the transparency and profound relationships that come through it.

So where do we go from here? I’d say being yourself, i.e. becoming authentic is a great start. And after you can do that, it’s time to do some friend-purging. . . .

Ok, so I’m really not going to completely answer this question in a blog post, but I’m going to focus on one aspect of it. We’d have to cover the entire Bible to answer this question satisfactorily and completely!

I was reading through Ephesians this evening, and really had a heavy burden on my heart while doing so. I really have been thinking lately, “How do I ensure that when I read the Bible I seek God’s revelation rather than turn it into an intellectual pursuit?” I’m happy I had the chance to be formally instructed in the Bible, but sometimes my brain begins thinking of hermeneutical principles and exegetical methods before it simply gets out of the way to let my heart grasp the text. When I get stuck on the meaning of certain passages, I am too quick to pick up my Greek Bible or a commentary on the text, rather than praying for God to reveal its meaning to my heart. Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing problematic with seeking to understand a text from its original language or looking for an in-depth commentary, but sometimes the Spirit is looking to speak to me without all of that getting in the way.

Tonight I simply let God speak to me through Ephesians and my trusty ESV Study Bible. What He showed me was profound (to me anyways). I just wanted to share some of it. In Ephesians 1:9, we learn that God has made “known to us the mystery of His will.” But what is the mystery of His will? That is the million-dollar-question. Verse 10 gives us the answer: “To unite all things in Him, things in heaven and things on earth.”

I’ve probably read that passage a hundred times, but it never clicked like tonight. It is God’s will to unite all things in Christ, both heavenly and earthly things. God’s will is to unite everything (and everyone) in His kingdom. Later in Ephesians 3:3 Paul explains “how the mystery was made known to [him] by revelation.” The mystery in this instance in that the Gentiles (which includes most of us) are included in Christ Jesus through the gospel, with no distinction from the Jews. Perhaps none of this seems very eye-opening to you, because it really is very simple, and it may have only been for me. But tonight I had an experience with revealed truth, rather than intellectually imparted truth, and it really blew me away.

It is my prayer, as it is the apostle Paul’s, that all readers of this blog would receive “a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of [Jesus Christ], having the eyes of your hearts enlightened … and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Ephesians 1:17,18; 3:19).

I was going to wait until November 1st to post about this, but I just couldn’t wait, and a friend’s post triggered some more thoughts on this. The 31st of October is All Hallows’ Eve or Halloween. That means that the following day must be All Saints’ Day (a remembrance of the martyrs and saints). The time of year was chosen way back when in part to counter pagan festivals which focused on spiritism or witchcraft. These were common in much of Europe as non-Christians watched the lengthening of the night and the loss of daylight.

Luther posted his famous 95 Theses on the doors of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany on October 31, 1517. His main points of contention were:

• The church’s sale of indulgences (the church sold certificates supposedly granting the full or partial remission of temporal punishment due for sins which have already been forgiven)
• The nature of penance
• The authority of the Pope

This single act sparked what we now call the Reformation in the church, a radical change in theology, and a minor change in practice. Yes I know, many think practice changed drastically, and in many important areas it did. But overall, the changes were somewhat minimal in regards to the practice of our Sunday morning service.

So where am I going with this post? And why did I post it early? I stumbled across a great sermon today over at Jay Winters’ blog entitled How big was the Garden of Eden? He presents some great ideas about how to live free from sin, making an analogy to how Adam and Eve continued to hang out around “the sin tree” even though they had tons of room to roam in God’s “Divinely sanctioned nudist colony”, as Jay humorously calls the Garden of Eden. But it’s the last few sentences that really caught my attention:

So dream, dream and get away from your sin tree. Dream and participate in the life that God has for you. Dream and post your thoughts on a church door and fix the church. Take your boat and travel as far away from that sin tree as you can. Experience freedom. Experience God’s Word.

In some ways what myself and many others have been doing in the blogosphere is nailing our theses to the church doors. Luther did a great job fueling a Reformation that fixed the doctrinal issues, and it began to affect the heart issues as well. But Luther was a former priest and was deeply entrenched in much of the traditions. Now another Reformation is already underway, and it’s a Reformation of practice, not theology. And it’s followers are finding freedom, freedom as they experience God’s Word.

I’m stuck somewhere in the middle, trying to figure out how all of this will look, hence 390days.com — I’m still making sense of Christianity 2.0.

• Where are you? Are you walking in freedom and experiencing God’s Word in its richness or are you still making sense of the new direction our faith is headed?
• Is it OK to “look before you leep” in regards to Christianity 2.0?
• How does Web 2.0 enable Christ followers today to “nail theses” to the church’s doors worldwide in ways never imaginable in Luther’s day?

On various holidays, Google changes the logo on their search page to reflect the theme of the occasion. On October 13, 2008, which was Columbus Day, Google opted to sport a logo in honor of Paddington Bear’s 50th birthday instead of a drawing of the Niña, Pinta, and Santa Maria; which it has done in years past. I used to thoroughly enjoy reading Paddington Bear, but is it really more important than the day that Columbus discovered the New World?

Be honest, how many of you actually celebrated Columbus Day? That’s what I thought. I did to an extent, because I had the day off of work (I’m a federal employee, I know, you hate me). But in reality, I could have cared less about the holiday. What Google did really is impressive, it bucked against the status quo and decided to celebrate something people might actually be interested in: Paddington Bear’s birthday.

This is a really interesting lesson about Web 2.0 — it doesn’t maintain the status quo, it goes where the people really are, and talks about things that really matter to people. A lot of churches seem to always stick to the status quo for particular holidays. For instance, I know I’m going to learn about Jesus in the manger on Christmas and I know I’ll hear about His Passion and crucifixion on Good Friday. And there is nothing wrong with that, but how about the personal touch — what does this really mean to me? Maybe instead of re-enacting the nativity scene with a gaggle of preschoolers this year so people’s grandparents will attend church to take pictures of their kids, why not throw everyone for a loop and reflect on the magnitude of the Incarnation of Christ — the fact that He became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14).

I grew up Lutheran, and most Lutheran churches follow the church calendar. I could look in my hymnal as a kid and tell you what Bible verses we would be reading one year in advance. Now I understand tradition and all, but why not break from the status quo a little bit? I mean, we already know half of the people (if not more) who claim to be Christian only attend church on Christmas and Easter, why not give them something different. I mean, if one were only going to attend church twice a year, why should the services all be identical? Why not save some time and money, and instead of dressing up preschoolers as wise men, simply tell people about incarnational living? Maybe even explain (gulp) that without regular fellowship with other believers our faith will wither. Maybe instead of trying to appease our guests we only see twice a year, maybe preach Law and Gospel to them, in a non-traditional way. When you hear and see the same thing year after year, the status quo isn’t going to get your attention. Why not “let ‘em have it?” Why even bother with the manger story? Why not explain why He had to come in the first place? Do the unthinkable and preach out of the Old Testament — do something different, think outside of the box.

That’s the message of Paddington Bear trumping Columbus Day. Don’t go with the status quo, do something different. Get people’s attention. Get people talking. Most importantly, get people to think. We spend so much time living life at a busy pace so that we don’t have to slow down and reflect — because most of us are afraid of what we might learn if we did. Churches have largely unchurched folks’ undivided attention for at least one hour on Christmas this year, do something different — make it count. Christianity 2.0 doesn’t care about the way it’s always been done, it wants something fresh and relevant. Don’t bore me with another nativity play, tell me about incarnational living.

• What does incarnational living mean to you? What does the above picture tell you about it?
• Are you tired of the status quo?
• What are other ways one can be fresh and relevant instead of maintaining the status quo in regards to being a follower of Jesus?

I know that tithing is kind of an edgy topic, but hey, if you don’t like edgy issues, you probably wouldn’t read this blog. I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to the three types of tithes practiced in the Old Testament, remembering that these were for Israel as part of their taxation system. They are:

1. A tithe of the produce of the land to support the Levites who had no inheritance in Canaan (Leviticus 27:30-33; Numbers 18:21-31).
2. A tithe of the produce of the land to sponsor religious festivals to carry to Jerusalem. If the produce was too burdensome for a family to carry to Jerusalem, they could convert it into money (this is sometimes called the “festival tithe”). (Deuteronomy 14:22-27).
3. A tithe of the produce of the land collected every third year for the local Levites, orphans, strangers, and widows (Deuteronomy 14:28-29; 26:12-13).

Now let’s do the math. Two tithes of 10% annually = 20%, plus a 10% tithe every three years = 23.3% per year. You may be shocked right now. Many will inevitably say, “I thought the biblical tithe was only 10%.” Wrong, it’s 23.3%.

But this leads me to my next point: Tithing is biblical, but it’s not Christian. The oft-quoted passage that people like to use to justify tithing is Malachi 3:8-10:

“Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you ask, ‘How do we rob you?’In tithes and offerings. You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.

But the problem is, the verse is being used out of context. Check out verse 5 to see what I mean:

“So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me,” says the LORD Almighty.

You see, God’s heart in this issue is the neglect of the widows, fatherless, and aliens. The tithe for the Israelites was the national taxation system in order to provide for the poor and for the Levites (priests), since they owned nothing. Today, the money you put in the plate goes towards pastors’ salaries and building costs, and often the biblical tithe actually oppresses the poor.

Not a few poor Christians have been thrown into deeper poverty because they have felt obligated to give beyond their means. Malachi 3 is thrown into their faces, and they begin to fear a financial curse if they aren’t tithing. In such cases, the gospel is no longer “good news to the poor,” but it instead becomes a heavy burden.

On the other hand, modern day tithing is good news to the rich. To a high earner, 10% is nothing to drop into the plate. Tithing, therefore, appeases their consciences without impacting their lifestyles.

The bottom line is this: with the death of Jesus, all the ceremonial codes of the Jews were nailed to the cross and buried, never to be used again to condemn us. Christians didn’t tithe in the New Testament (they actually gave more than 10% in many cases), any they gave from their hearts, not out of compulsion. I’ll say it again: Tithing, although biblical, is not Christian. 2 Corinthians 9:7 sums it up well:

Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

This is short and sweet, but hopefully very thought provoking. Due to the Wikipedia phenomenon, is truth an objective measure anymore? Some call the influence postmodernism or existentialism, but is this something different?

In brief, postmodernism is the belief that we create our own meaning, and that tends to be a very relative meaning. Existentialism is a belief that there is no absolute truth, and intolerance is the greatest evil. Of course existentialism disproves itself, since the very concept is itself a notion of absolute truth (that there is no objective truth). If you’re confused, it’s ok. You can still learn from this post — keep reading.

In Wikipedia, I think postmodernism has become the new standard of truth. Citing a source is no longer the measure of an objective reality, rather the group coming to a consensus is the new norm for acceptance. The entire Wikipedia community must agree on a given statement to determine its acceptance into an article. What does that convey to you about truth? Do we do that in other arenas outside of Wikipedia? Do you tend to believe what people tell you rather than something out of a scholarly work? Is community consensus more important to us than objective reality? Just some thoughts. . . .

A popular notion today is that there is a clear dichotomy, or distinction, between sacred and secular. Such distinctions are commonly made by Christians in the areas of music and vocations. In music, for example, we have secular, or “worldly” music. And then we have Christian music, which is often regarded as being sacred (even though most “Christian” songs are just as secular as “worldly” songs).

But the area I’d most like to focus on is that of vocation, the employment positions we hold. For some reason we continue to foster this sacred/secular distinction for jobs: some people are called into ministry, and the rest of us hold secular jobs. But that’s not what the Bible teaches. All believers are called into full time ministry! It is not something reserved for a clerical professional – we are all called to be full time ministers in God’s present kingdom! Everyday life is sanctified by God, we have a whole life embracing, fully comprehensive Gospel for the transformation of all things. This affects every aspect of our lives.

Far too many today espouse the idea that ministry is an institution that is reserved only for the few who are “called” and “ordained.” The problem is, this (in practice) denies the priesthood of all believers. Ordination was fashioned in the fourth century after the Roman rituals of the appointment of public officials to office, and the church adopted this when the lines between church and state were blurred under Constantine’s rule. This distinction between clergy and laity still exists to this day.

Don’t believe me? Why do many traditional pastors still dress differently than us “normal lay people”? Point stated. To quote Frank Viola in his book Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices:

The contemporary practice of ordination creates a special caste of Christian. Whether it be the priest in Catholicism or the pastor in Protestantism, the result is the same: The most important ministry is restricted to a few “special” believers. . . .

Tremendous psychological factors make laypeople feel that ministry is the responsibility of the pastor. It’s his job. He’s the expert is often their thinking. . . .

The clergy/laity dichotomy perpetuates an awful falsehood-namely, that some Christians are more privileged than others to serve the Lord.

Hmm, I think this is a problem. But don’t take my word for it, think for yourselves. I’m not calling for an abolition of hierarchical leadership in the church like Viola and Barna, but I do think a lot needs to change in the way we do church and recognize leaders.

The pastoral office is really not something God envisioned, not in the way we utilize it today anyways. George Barna did a study on pastors, and some of what he found was eye-opening. Did you know these startling statistics about pastors:

• 94% feel pressured to have an ideal family
• 81% say they have insufficient time with their spouses
• 80% believe that pastoral ministry affects their family negatively
• 70% do not have someone they consider a close friend
• 70% have lower self-esteem than when they entered the ministry
• 50% feel unable to meet the demands of the job
• 80% are discouraged or deal with depression
• 40% of pastoral resignations are due to burnout
• 1,400 ministers in all denominations across the United States are fired or forced to resign each month
• The average length of a pastorate has declined from seven years to just over four years

Do you still think this is of God. I know there are exceptions to all of this, some congregations are very understanding and whatnot, but a majority of pastors are asked to essentially conduct all of the local ministry of the church (or have their hand in it). Many pastors crumble under this pressure — and that’s because it wasn’t designed to work this way!

When we make the pastor a professional clergyman who is distinct from laity we begin to view ministry as something that is only his (or her) responsibility. One person is not meant to sport all of these hats! They just can’t! Only an every-member functioning Body can accomplish the ministry that is required to be done. It shouldn’t be “lonely at the top,” because we aren’t meant to live in a separate caste from one another! Remember what Paul said about the different parts of the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12). Too many pastors are trying to be the head (which is reserved for Christ), or they are performing all the other parts’ functions since they are not doing it.

Now pastors may say, “we have to do this because the congregation won’t ’step up to the plate’ and do what they demand from us.” May I contend that in order to get them to ’step up to the plate’ you must foundationally change the very way we do church! The current structure clearly doesn’t work. It has failed to produce anything but a passive laity who is utterly dependent on one man, their pastor, for the past 500 hundred years. I think some revolutionary change is in order. That change is Christianity 2.0.

There is no such thing as a “secular job.” I am called into the mission field and minister to my coworkers and those brought into my path. This is no less “sacred” than any pastor’s job. The Gospel is meant to transform our entire lives, not just our Sunday morning experience.