Welcome. Browse. Click. Think. Discuss. Tell your friends. Repeat. Welcome. Browse. Click. Think. Discuss. Tell your friends. Repeat. Welcome. Browse. Click. Think. Discuss. Tell your friends. Repeat. Welcome. Browse. Click. Think. Discuss. Tell your friends. Repeat. Welcome. Browse. Click. Think. Discuss. Tell your friends. Repeat. Welcome. Browse. Click. Think. Discuss. Tell your friends. Repeat. Welcome. Browse. Click. Think. Discuss. Tell your friends. Repeat. Welcome. Browse. Click. Think. Discuss. Tell your friends. Repeat. Welcome. Browse. Click. Think. Discuss. Tell your friends. Repeat. Welcome. Browse. Click. Think. Discuss. Tell your friends. Repeat.

Be my friend on Facebook.

Follow me on Twitter.

Watch this piece. Has the “mystery” of Stonehenge been solved?

Find out what Stormtroopers do on their day off.

Read about Poland okaying forcible castration for pedophiles.

Read “Why CIOs are saying no to Macs.”

Read about the sequel to the Blair Witch Project.

How many millions of dollars are we spending to bomb the moon?

Read as Flavorwire interviews Califone’s Tim Rutili about the influence of film on the band’s music.

Read as the A.V. Club interviews Vic Chesnutt.

Read as John Darnielle of the Mountain Goats is interviewed about his new album, The Life of the World to Come, an album full of Scripture references from an atheist.

Read as PopMatters explores the past, present, and future of ska.

Read this review of the recent Bon Iver performance my wife and I attended.

Read this piece about why so many churches are so bad at new media.

Read this piece: “It’s a Fork, It’s a Spoon, It’s a … Weapon?”

Read as Pitchfork talks to Spike Jonze about Where the Wild Things Are.

Read as “Relevant” argues why music should be free.

Read as Mark Driscoll talks about “Positives, Negatives and Neutrals” in the local church.

Read as my friend Paul offers several tips for understanding Scripture.

Read as “Relevant” wonders why we’re all so into PostSecret.

Browse this list of seven reasons to see Where the Wild Things Are.

Read this piece wondering “Why Can’t Ricky Gervais’ Pro-Atheism Film Attract Any Religious Protests?”

Read about the new record label from Lenny and Daniel Smith, Great Comfort Records.

Watch this video in which Scott Thomas relates how he came to be director of Acts 29.

Read Mark Driscoll’s first piece for the Washington Post’s On Faith series.

R.I.P. “Captain” Lou Albano.

Read this piece explaining why The Village Church does their welcome the way they do.

Come burn “Satan’s bibles” and perverse books by the likes of Billy Graham.

Read about Bon Iver calling it quits. Or at least taking a long “hiatus.”

Browse Paste’s list of 15 television shows that were canceled too soon.

Read as Collide magazine examines media ministry in light of the recession.

Read about Michael Jackson’s graphic novel.

Read as Allmusic profiles the best music of 2005.

Read Exclaim!’s interview with Sufjan Stevens.

Browse this list of the 10 coolest bookstores in the U.S.

Read USA Today’s review of Bob Dylan’s Christmas album.

Here is a Spike Jonez directed video for UNKLE:

Here’s a group I know nothing about called Ruby Coast, with a fun little piece called “Neighbourhood:”

Here’s Fanfarlo performing their song “The Walls Are Coming Down”:

I recently read Jim Belcher’s great book Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional and I’ve been thinking about sections of it ever since.

For example, we recently had the chance to go stay at a cabin at Lyman Lake, AZ. We took our Golden Retriever, Baxter with us. Baxter is a great dog and for the first day and a half or so, we were some of the only people at the campground, so we were able to leave him off of his leash. We went fishing, we went hiking, we hung out at the cabin and Baxter stayed with us the whole time. Every once in a while he would wander slightly off and then look back at us and come running back. Worst-case scenario, we had to call him and he came right back (except for the time he was chasing a crane and then it took him several times to come back, but he did and that’s not the point).

I’ve been thinking a lot about that time with our dog. Normally, my first reaction is to keep him tight on a leash when we go out. In fact, the first little bit at the cabin, that’s what we did. He moped. A lot. But when we let him off of his leash, he perked up.

Of course every analogy breaks down, but I keep thinking about how Baxter would wander off a little ways, never out of eye-sight and then run back to us. He knew that he was loved, protected and cared for and he was loyal to that. We would never say that our dog had to act a certain way before he could be our dog. We brought him into our family and then molded him into the fabric of our lives.

And yet, so many of our churches place belief before belonging. In other words, you have to believe certain doctrines before you could be a part of the community. I’ve been part of churches that grew only when a family discovered the “doctrines of grace” only to leave their “Arminian” church. The reason most people felt comfortable at those churches was because they already held the doctrine and if you didn’t, you weren’t comfortable. Belief was placed before belonging.

And yet, as Belcher points out, biblically, it seems that belonging is before belief, at least in the sense of belonging to a community, not the “Church” in the technical sense of Believers, but in the general sense of a Gospel-centered community. Jesus welcomed all, forming a community around Himself that decreased in size as people moved towards belief. Jesus knew that many who followed Him didn’t truly believe, but He still created community for them.

Belcher draws an analogy from Frost and Hirsch’s The Shaping of Things to Come. In America, we deal with our livestock and herds with fences. We erect literal boundaries. But, as Frost and Hirsch point out, in Australia, where they’re from, the range is far too open for fences to be practical. So, the question forces itself, how does a rancher keep his herds and livestock from running away? The answer is so brilliant it might surprise you: dig a well. The animals will roam a bit but they will always come back to the well because it is their life-source.

In the church, of course, Jesus is the well. When we focus on Jesus, when we focus on the center rather than the bounds, belonging can precede belief and there is room, even in a local church for disagreement on certain doctrinal issues. As Chris Seay recently posted on his Facebook page:

Quote from Machen “not all doctrines are equally important. It is perfectly possible for Xn fellowship to be maintained despite differences”

This, of course, will drive some people crazy. After all, if we don’t focus on our differences, how do we know who is in our tribe and who is in “the other tribe which might not even be a tribe at all because they have this and that doctrine(s) wrong.” But the more I think about it, the more we focus on Jesus, the more life-giving the well at the center is, the more porous the outer boundaries can be. This isn’t to say that doctrine is unimportant, just that it has far too often been used to exclude rather than educate, to divide rather than worship.

The trick, of course, is to understand which doctrines are worth dividing over and which are not and that’s where, what Belcher calls “The Great Tradition” (Nicene Christianity, etc.) plays such an important role, but that’s probably fodder for another post.

Should churches focus on the center rather than the boundaries? Should we allow those with doctrinal differences, or even more, those who don’t yet believe into our community?

What do you think?

Allow me to introduce myself. I was saved approximately sixteen years ago in a non-denominational Bible-church setting. I grew up in that environment; socially conservative, seeker-sensitive, program-driven and theologically shallow. I still love that church and many of the people who are still there, but let’s be honest about what it was. Soon after, I was introduced to the “doctrines of grace” and found myself in a very warm, welcoming and loving Reformed Baptist church using the 1689 Confession of Faith as their adult Sunday School material.

From there, my wife and I found ourselves in Louisville, KY at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. We were in Louisville for three years while I did my MDiv and it was there that I first began to feel the pains of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Don’t get me wrong, I had a great seminary experience, but it is a seminary that leans toward the “suit and tie” model of the pastorate and, try as I might, I just don’t fit that model.

I have always been fascinated with popular culture and particularly how the church can better bridge the gap between it’s own ghetto subculture and the broader surrounding culture. I love music and the arts and, as much as I want it to be otherwise, modern evangelicalism often views these things as utilitarian propaganda tools. And it doesn’t take long for someone who loves all kinds of music to get the stink eye from those who think I’m dabbling too much “in the world.”

To top it all off, I have, for some time, felt that many of the questions being asked by the emerging church are right on. I too have shared many of their frustrations. This has meant that I have not always fit well into the traditional reformed circles in which I often find myself. But at the same time, I am very conservative doctrinally which means that, though I am intrigued by many of the emerging church’s questions, I am less than enamored by many of their answers. In short, I have often had the experience of feeling stuck in the middle.

And I know I’m not alone. The very fact that Jim’s book exists, much less the fact that it’s the buzz of the blogosphere demonstrates that he has hit a nerve. There seems to be a growing group of young(er) pastors who are reformed in their theology but don’t fit in the wider spectrum of so many who hold court in the larger reformed world. This book fills several holes that seem to have been lacking in much of this discussion. It is:

• Doctrinal
• God-centered
• Christ-focused
• Irenic
• Missional

That’s a unique set but it’s one that many people have been longing for. To be reformed does not have to mean being cold and antagonistic. To be missional does not mean leaving doctrine behind. Jim’s book is a challenge and an encouragement. It is a testament to the fact that modern evangelicalism has succeeded in alienating many of its younger leaders. But it’s also a call for those younger leaders (to paraphrase Marva Dawn) to “reach out without dumbing down.”

I’d like to hear your thoughts. Why is this book striking a chord with so many people? Has it with you? Why or why not?

• Read Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional by Jim Belcher

This side of glory, it seems, division is simply par for the course. Sadly, nowhere dos this seem to be more evident than when it comes to Christianity. Rather than a unified, mutually humble, corporately loving Body, many see and many experience Christianity as divisive and judgmental. We take our doctrine seriously and we want you to know when you’re on the wrong side. Even in Christianity, we tend towards a “two-party” system of division. Any more major voices in a discussion require that nuance and that doesn’t come easily to us.

There are, however, some people who feel compelled to forge a via media, a middle way, a third way. I am often quite hesitant about so-called “third ways.” For example, many have tried to bridge the gap between Calvinism and Arminianism with “Calminianism,” which, at the end of the day, takes neither position seriously. Or, when it comes to eschatology, it’s a popular joke to say that one is a “Panmillennialist,” meaning it will all pan out in the end. It is often the case that the so-called “third ways” are little more than watered-down mixtures of the two opposing viewpoints.

Enter Jim Belcher. Though many differences in modern evangelicalism are quite serious, few seem to be as contentious and confusion as the seeming split between the “traditional” and “emerging” wings of the Church. In fact, if you ask 10 people to define either of those terms, you’re likely to get 11 different answers. And yet, one doesn’t have to wade too far into this “conversation” to realize that there are many very important issues at stake.

But, it seems to me, there are a number of young(er) pastors like myself (though my wife says I’m old), who are interested in many of the questions asked by the emerging church but partial to the theological depth of the more “traditional” church (if there is any downside to Belcher’s book, it’s that he doesn’t clearly define the “traditional” side as much as the emerging side). In the more frustrating times, it seems as though many such pastors find themselves attacked from each side with few seeming allies.

Belcher, a PCA pastor, has long walked the via media between the “traditional” and “emerging” churches, sometimes with each accusing him of belonging to the other. Belcher admits that many of the critiques of the emerging church have merit, modern evangelicalism has often reduced itself to a pragmatic, consumer-driven culture entrenched in modernist, exclusionary, judgmental culture. What makes Belcher’s book worthwhile though, is that he pushes back on both sides, not only concurring with some of the emerging critiques, but also pointing out where they have gone too far and adopted equally unhelpful thoughts.

Unlike so many in this debate, Belcher took the time to listen before speaking. In fact, he sat down with Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones and others and clarified, in-person to make sure he understood their arguments. This alone sets the book apart and gives Belcher a credibility few involved can speak with. Belcher presents us with a winsome, thoughtful, irenic but forceful example. This credibility makes his conclusion a bit more palatable: both sides are wrong and both sides are right, but both sides are not listening to one another or willing to work together to bring their strengths together. Instead, each side casts dispersions and knocks down straw men and no one is edified.

Belcher adopts C.S. Lewis’ term “Deep Church” to propose a middle ground, drawing from the strengths of both the traditional and emerging sides while also acknowledging the weaknesses of each. This “Deep Church” draws deeply on Nicene Christianity as a model to forge the difficult middle path. As skeptical as I may have been beginning the book, Belcher’s “Deep Church” resonates powerfully. I often find myself not quite fitting in the traditional “Reformed” circles or in the emergent-ing circles. Belcher gives voice to what so many young pastors have been wrestling with, but he doesn’t just voice complaints, he offers solutions deeply rooted in the Bible, in Tradition and Mission (Belcher offers thoughts on “Deep Truth, Evangelism, Gospel, Worship, Preaching, Ecclesiology and Culture”).

Though some have legitimate concerns about whether or not Belcher’s really is a “third way”, there is enough here to challenge both sides that it should be read by both sides and those like myself that don’t seem quite at home in either. Striving towards a centered-set, Christ-centered approach, Belcher does not offer a “how-to” manual, but instead has pulled the wheel of the ship, hopefully a few degrees in the right direction. It will be up to those of us who follow to see how the course plays out.

I’ve intentionally not interacted with many of Belcher’s specific points here because, quite honestly, I want you to read the book. It has been a long time since I’ve so deeply resonated with a book (I hope to post a separate piece soon about why the book seems to be connecting so well with so many in my situation) and for now, it’s enough to say that this is a much-needed addition to the discussion. Please read it, please come back and discuss and let’s see how we can’t move forward together towards a “Deep Church.”

• Read Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional by Jim Belcher

OK, so my friend Eldon were continuing a conversation that he began with his son. What makes music timeless? I’m not necessarily talking about classical music, jazz or blues, but moreso “rock” or “pop” music. Why is it that Journey is still being played at school dances and in 30 years from now, no one will remember a band like Blink 182? What is it that makes some music outlast others?

Eldon argues that much of today’s “popular” music simply has an antagonistic, immature element to it. Some bands are able to outgrow this and evolve, the Beastie Boys, for example, but many simply look for quick success with no thought of long-term artistic growth. In fact, the industry as a whole doesn’t seem interested in nurturing artists for long-term growth.

Many older bands have been able to transcend the simple “classic rock” status, Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Neil Young and others continue to grow, adapt and last. I would argue that the last two bands to really cross that threshold might be R.E.M. and U2. I think Wilco is on their way, and for smaller subsets, maybe Social Distortion The Smiths. But, on the whole, it seems that much of the current music is destined for the trash bin of the eternal laptop.

What makes some music timeless? It seems to be tied a specific time but also transcend that same time. Is there a certain substance to this music that’s lacking in others? Are there any current artists you see destined to outlive their current generation?

What do you think?