Whether Christians live intentionally in the same house or just in the same city, how should they interact in a way that is faithful to a biblical narrative, church history, and a theologically creative way?

These important questions – ultimately – comes down to the way a community distributes their resources.  In the western world, the question of resources – and lake thereof – falls into the field of economics.  And we have heard much from diverse Christian groups – from liberal to conservative and everywhere in between – about the correct way to practice Christian economics in our world (e.g. social justice, tithing correctly, helping our neighbor, etc.).

While there have been and still are militant forms of Christianity that try to create a correct “version” of Christianity and make all Christians conform, Christian communities have always been largely erected as localized communities with their own traditions and values.  Even when Catholicism was the only form of Christianity practiced during the Middle Ages, scholars such as Peter Brown have shown that it is difficult to paint all the localized medieval communities with the same broad strokes.  Different towns had different patron saints, different foci, and different reactions to various stimuli.  While the description of these towns sounds overly scientific, I mention it because we need to understand there was not just one abstract Christianity that “won out” over others and this has implications for the way we practice economics as Christians.

Namely, our economic practices will be largely localized.  What will work for one group, will not work for another.  Any attempts to try and transplant an economic vision that worked in one area will inevitably struggle to take root in an entirely new area with different ideas and values.  Thus, it is almost impossible to make statements about what is “good” or “just” in one community working for a variety of communities.  The problem with some kind of “nationalized” Christianity or “universal” Christianity is the inevitable consequence of “boundary markers” becoming a central part of any specific economy of Christianity.

For instance, let’s say one large church like Willow Creek uses a specific ministry model x to help the homeless in their community.  A few other churches around the United States see Willow Creek’s success and design a homeless ministry using the same blueprint as Willow Creek.  The result will be inevitable failure because successful homeless ministry is based first on understanding the homeless themselves.  You can read studies, books, and talk to other leaders in similar ministries, but until the leaders of a Christian community talk to the actual homeless in their actual city and learn their actual needs, nothing can really be done for good or ill.  What inevitably is created when we try to follow the blueprint of another church are arbitrary “goals” (i.e. find a home for the homeless or find the homeless a job, when the problem needs to be studied more endemically and personally) made mostly by ministers who have good intentions, but have never themselves been homeless or befriended any homeless people.

The first step in the specific type of economy that should be practiced by Christians then is discussion amongst the people within a community that leads towards some kind of action not dictated by arbitrary boundary markers.  More to come on this…

Research shows that an excessive focus on basic math and reading scores can lead to narrowing and over-simplifying the curriculum to only the subjects and formats that are tested, reducing the attention to science, history, the arts, civics, and foreign language, as well as to writing, research, and more complex problem-solving tasks (EPI Briefing – Page 4)

The goal for teacher’s should not primarily be for students to pass a multiple choice test., but rather should encourage students to design new and innovative architecture, to find creative solutions for complex global issues, to create new systems of philosophical thought, to create beautiful forms of art, to invent, and so much more.

Students do not need more tests, they need more options.  We do need to spend some time focusing on the basics of reading, writing, and math, but students should use these disciplines as a jumping off point for other interests.  We do not expect adults to know everything about every subject, so why should we expect students to be good in all subjects?  If students enjoy the sciences, they should be given a variety of classes that allow them to explore science, especially at the secondary level.  If a student enjoys art, they should be able to pursue a variety of art classes.

I don’t know how to fund it, I don’t know how to organize it, but this is something the educational community needs to think about in the years to come.

The audience for the book seems to be evangelicals looking to branch out a bit into the postmodern world, but not too far.  He talks about the transition from modernism to postmodernism.  After talking about the “hazards of postmodernism,” Cyzewski suggests we find a balance and healthy dialogue between culture and Christian perspectives.  One of his major points is “combating” those things prophetically which go against the “values” of God.

I would highly suggest this book as a kind of first step for those who want to lead a Bible study with Evangelicals looking to branch out and find a new way to read the Bible, but for those who already have a background in theology, this book can also be a good reminder as to how to live out the Christian life in tension with life as we now know it.  I don’t particularly like the language of “combat” because I am extremely non-violent in most of my theological perspectives, and I found some of his conclusions to be more “objective” than the conclusions I have arrived at over the years, but it is definitely worth reading!

The primary variable within the LAUSD debate centers not on value-added analysis, but standardized testing itself which put students into percentiles from 0 to 100 on a somewhat complicated bell curve. Put in laymen’s terms: students who answer the most questions correctly place in the highest percentile, while the students who answer the least amount of questions correctly place in the lowest percentile. All the other students are placed somewhere in the middle based on how many questions they answered correctly comparative to other students at there same grade level across California.

Teachers generally know what types of questions will be on the test because they are based on California content standards, but they don’t know the specific questions and they might not always know which areas of content will be covered the most. Certain questions on the test are designed to separate the “wheat” from the so-called “chaff,” but as many good educators will tell you, tests should not be designed to “trick” students. Thus, teachers are bound to teach to a test that many had no stake in creating while mostly showing how well students can take this particular test (not necessarily how much they know or enjoy certain topics within school), but teachers are not the only variable involved in standardized testing.

Because value added analysis accounts for improvement in a student’s percentile score measured from year to year, much of the analysis should hold merit for administrators, teachers, and parents. Namely, the analysis shows how teachers help in the process of student percentile improvement. But many of the students simply do not have the intrinsic motivation to do well on tests.

Why?

Because the test does not count for a grade and when they receive the results in the mail, the results are largely abstract. There is no follow-up the next year for students to understand why the missed certain questions or how the results are calculated. They do not receive any merit or demerit for scoring higher or lower on the test, and colleges really only look at GPA, ACT, SAT and other college tests for admission to the university. Thus, there is much disconnect between the test itself and the actual educational process students experience each day.

What follows is a vicious cycle: First, teachers are bound to teach in a way that students will pass a test. Second, students take the test, but do not see any tangible rewards or consequences for their work. Third, schools are punished if they cannot raise test scores. The process continues on until either schools go into program improvement or the scores are high enough. Students should not spend the whole year preparing for a test that is bubble-filling. There are no jobs when students leave high school requiring them to take a test and fill in bubbles (unless of course they are going into education where there is no shortage of RICA’s, CSET’s, CBEST’s, and other acronyms for fill in the blank tests to see if you are “ready” to teach).

If we are going to continue giving tests, they need to be high stake tests that matter to the student. For instance, we might give a test in sixth and eighth grade which students prepare for that uses higher-order thinking and problem solving skills in mathematics that require detailed explanations and evidence in the forms of graphs, solutions, and short answer writing that shows real student competency of math standards.  Perhaps we should create a series of short-answer/essay questions that accounts for differentiated instruction as a language arts standardized test graded on a calibrated scale similar to AP essays.

These tests should be high-stakes not just for the teacher, but for the student. For instance, if a student scores on the low end of the competency, there should be a remediation class that teaches those competencies using hands-on differentiated instruction by highly-qualified cohorts of collaborative teachers.  Administrators, resource teachers, and general ed teachers should collaborate to help identify students who are not meeting benchmarks and strategies for program improvement.  Students should be allowed to retake the test (similarly to the CAHSEE) until the pass it, but it should be something that students have to be proficient at before they move on to the next level of education. There will be some problems, of course, because students will sometimes need to be socially promoted, but even at that next level, they should need to meet these requirements. There should be some kind of checklist students must complete before graduating high school if we really want the tests to be high stakes, while at the same time have students buy into the idea as well.

There are about 100 flaws in my thinking here, and I know I will get comments showing why I’m sure, but this is just the beginning of my thoughts on how education might be reformed for better standardized testing.

For instance, lets say that seven people wanted to share a five bedroom house. I looked up one in my hometown of Santa Maria that is running for $545,000. Alone, none of us would be able to afford the house, but let’s say for the sake of the scenario that each person in the group contributed $10,000 to the down-payment and was given 14.2% ownership of the house. That would come out to a $70,000 downpayment with each person paying a monthly payment of $870 over ten years (about what you would pay to rent a two bedroom house). Imagine, instead of a 30 year fixed mortgage, paying a house off in ten years! Paying off the house in ten years instead of 30 is a savings of almost $600,000 in interest.

The next question people might ask is, “Well what happens when one family or person wants has to move on because of work or other circumstances?” The nice thing about being tenants in common is that the other tenants can buy out their share. Thus, the person leaves with a nice check for their share of the property (14% or about $76,300). The others can absorb this debt or add someone else into the mix to take over that person’s share of the house. It is somewhat like diversifying in the stock market because you have others to help you if one of the people has to leave the house. It works as a good community should.

But just living together does not automatically create Christian community. In fact, the creation of genuine community, as I’ve come to find over 23 years of existence, is not something that ever just “happens.” It is work. It has always been the work of God to try and bring people together and living in a house, where one is dependent on the others for the payment and upkeep of the house, can be quite a body-stretching experience. Dependence is not something we strive for or teach in our public schools. In fact, it seems that we teach just the opposite. To stay away from one another and to keep afloat “on our own.” What might this intentional Christian community look like as we all share in the hard times and the good?

I am afraid that I will end up alone in a house that alienates me from any kind of Christian community.

I am afraid that expectations of friends and family will always expect me to get bigger and better things in life for no good reason.

I am afraid that I will grow stagnant and stop wanting to constantly learn new things and engage with others concerning what the kingdom of God should look like here and now.

But at the same time I am excited to try and form some kind of community wherever I end up.

At the same time, I think I can rise above the expectations and the stereotypes to create a world that thinks and acts justly in an unjust world.

At the same time, I think there is a way to take time out of a busy life to be a lifelong learner and talk with others in a way that leads towards a Kingdom lifestyle.

I suppose I just need to find the right people in the right place…

Should we see God’s economy as some from of social communism? Some have interpreted the early church — with the mutual sharing amongst all the members — as the way for the church to be. To take a modern example, perhaps everyone in a church might put their money into a ‘common pot’ and people would take money out of the pot as need be.

Should we see God’s economy as some form of investment in which we “put in” and then receive “dividends” later on. There are many trustworthy places to invest within our economy which pay out dividends throughout the years as a kind of “profit-sharing.” Can we read stories like the parable of the talents to mean we are to invest our money and make interest on it?

Or should we see God’s economy as some kind of place where we try to create an entirely new kind of economic system that derives its value from human interaction and less from annuities, capital, and other forms of equity? Should we be a people more concerned with brokenness, poverty, and social justice within our world? Should we pray that God’s kingdom truly would come and his will be done on earth as it is in heaven? And yet how do we do that in a world so consumed with money and where money is sometimes needed to bring about these human interactions we speak about?

Some questions I am pondering and would like responses to if you are so inclined to leave comments on this blog:
1) Should Christians make more money in order to give more of it away for causes of social justice?
2) Should Christians invest in the stock market?
3) How do retirement plans fit in with the kingdom of God (if at all)?

Auten has a down to earth and passionate approach to Christian spirituality. Summing up the recipe for authentic and abundant life in three terms–Simplicity, Patience, and Compassion–Auten invites us to enter into a truly genuine and captivating faith journey. His is not a dogmatic, systematic, or ideological theology. It is, rather, a perspective on God and life that is captivating and attractive while at the same time quite rooted and traditional. He manages to stay free from unhealthy obligations to old questions (i.e. the questions of the reformation, such as, “how do I get to heaven when I die?”)without giving into the temptation to be “relevant” and/or hip. For Auten, God is here and now and the abundant life, eternal life, starts now!

In terms of style, I think if you read Henri Nouwen, you’ll probably like Auten.

This book is a worthwhile and yet quick read. I definitely recommend it as an addition to your bookshelf.

In our fragmented and broken society a wedding is a sign of healing–two people, two families, two communities being made one. Two people come together, with their unique histories, bringing together two families positioned in the context of two communities which might otherwise, if left to their own devices, remain disconnected and disinterested. The sort of healing which Christ came to bring was and is the kind of healing that breaks down barriers and draws all people together–people who might otherwise, if left to their own devices, never be united. Marriage, therefore, is a foretaste of reconciliation–the mending of the world. Of course it comes with its trials and pains (if it didn’t, we might simply say “in health” and leave “sickness” out of the equation) for, as Thomas Merton wrote, the world is “a body of broken bones” and broken bones, when they are reset, tend to hurt. Divorce is simply the refusal to accept healing.

Marriage is Eucharistic insofar as it is an image of an invisible truth. It reveals the healing of the world which would otherwise remain concealed in the midst of brokenness and curse. In that sacramental moment when the two are united, the world is made right, the world is made one–the broken body of Christ is re-membered. Marriage calls a future reality–the reality of the fulfillment of Christ’s prayer “that they may all be one”–into the present and it, as it is lived out daily, refuses to accept the present brokenness which is so persistently pressed upon us day by day. Marriage is a counter cultural expression of love and faithfulness. Marriage refuses to accept the world as it is. It refuses to give in to cynicism and lesser visions. As the world comes together in and around the sacrament of marriage, we fulfill that for which we were created. In marriage, we reflect the image of the triune and eternal God of all creation.

It’s not just because we love each other (although we totally do!), it’s not just because it’s better to have a partner (although I imagine that it must be)… We’re getting married because we believe that God is healing the world and is reconciling all creation, through Christ’s physical body, to Himself. We are created in the image of God and we will reflect that image through unity and through the hope that is expressed in covenant. We deny brokenness, we reject the fragmentation, and we clearly and unabashedly proclaim redemption as we point with our bodies toward a world filled with the image of a loving God.

[this post was originally published at Living in the Kingdom on May 31st, 2010... this is the updated version (since the wedding is closer now than it was in May)]

Dan Brennan is addressing this primary issue: Can males and females — to the chagrin of Billy Crystal in “When Harry Met Sally” — simply “be friends.” His answer: Yes! He spends the rest of the book talking about why he thinks this is not only possible, but necessary in the Christian Church. As members of a new creation, Brennan argues that we are called to practice committed friendships with those of the opposite sex as a genuine taste of the kingdom of God (as it is here and now).

There are two main problems (if you want to call them that) with the content of this book. First, the people that really need to read this book (namely extremely conservative evangelicals) either will not read this book or will choose to ignore and/or write off the themes inherent in this book. Second, people like me who do read the book already agree with him so he ends up “preaching to the choir.”

I found the book extremely engaging and I would highly recommend it. It goes well with some of the other books I have read on sexuality in church history as it relates to the early church and medieval church. Brennan is not just talking about men and women having relationships that extend beyond sex, he is also talking about breaking down some of the stereotypes and boundaries that stop us from bringing the kingdom of God to the world.

All in all, I would say that if you time to read this book, it is a very engaging and thoughtful look at how relationships should function in the church.