Are You Disciplined? by John Talley III

This was originally a five-part meditation on the subject. Here it is, as one post.

------------

 

Part One

For someone to be disciplined, hard work and dedication are required. LeBron James is a good example of that. In December 2012, he stayed after the game to work out after a brutal loss by the New York Knicks. James stated, “[I] had to get better.” Not too many people are going to stay at the basketball gym to practice after a long hard game that was lost on the home court. However, if one is disciplined enough that person will. It is the same mentality when it comes to the spiritual disciplines. One must have to be able to sweat to reach towards the goal, which is holiness.

Throughout Scripture, God’s people are commanded to be holy. 1 Peter 1:16 say, “Since it is written, you shall be holy. For I am holy.” Christians know that they are not holy on their own terms or in their own doing, but Christ’s blood makes them so. In fact, it is God’s will for his people to be holy (1 Thessalonians 4:7). Before an individual can understand this, he or she must grasp the meaning of what a spiritual discipline is, which we will discuss in greater detail in Part Two.

Part Two: What are Spiritual Disciplines?

Every person who professes the name of Christ should know what spiritual disciplines are. Perhaps some may be participating in them, but may not know what they are in their entirety. Donald Whitney, professor of Biblical Spirituality at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says, “The Spiritual Disciplines are those personal and corporate disciplines that promote spiritual growth” (Whitney, 1997, p.17). These practices include Bible intake, reading, praying, fasting, serving, and evangelism, etc.

           

Christians should be actively pursuing spiritual disciplines to grow in their knowledge of God and to grow spiritually for the purpose of godliness. 1 Timothy 4:7 records the reason to grow, which is holiness or godliness: “Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness.” This is an imperative that Paul communicates to Timothy in this Pastoral Epistle. There is a responsibility that believers must have to train themselves in godliness, and spiritual disciplines help to assist in that process. 

           

The topic of spiritual discipline essentially means to discipline oneself for spiritual growth just as an athlete trains and exercises extensively with a particular purpose in mind. This should encourage believers to walk in a manner that is worthy of the gospel and to fulfill their God-given purpose. For a more clear and precise definition, Whitney writes again, “The Spiritual Disciplines are the God-given means we are to use in the Spirit-filled pursuit of godliness” (Whitney, 1997, p.17). So with that understood, let us look at specific examples of the spiritual disciplines.

Part Three: Prayer

Prayer is an essential element for spiritual growth. Prayer is the humble communication in thought or speech to an object of worship expressing supplication, thanksgiving, praise, confession, etc. A journey through the Bible shows the Apostle Paul actively praying to God. Consider Philippians 1:3-4: “I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, for you making my prayer with joy.” Colossians 1:3 is very similar: “We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you…” Throughout the New Testament, Paul has a habitual practice of praying. He is much disciplined in the area of prayer.

           

Christians can learn from him and how he prays. The majority of the time he thanks God first, then he thanks God for them second. His prayers are also filled with joy, which is an element believers should be marked by. This is a exercise Christians should be doing. If they are not, they are being prideful because they are not being dependent on God and His word.

Prayer is communication and dependence on the one true God. The Bible has quite a few things to say about prayer. In fact, Jesus told His disciples to pray like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven…” (Matthew 6:9-13).

           

According to Richard J. Foster, “Prayer catapults us onto the frontier of the spiritual life. Of all the Spiritual Disciplines, prayer is the most central because it ushers us into perpetual communion with the Father…but it is the discipline of prayer that brings us into the deepest and highest work of the human spirit” (Foster, 1988, p.33). This is why prayer is so significant to the daily life of the believer. As Christians, we must be committed to prayer to grow spiritually and communicate with the triune God. So are you being disciplined in this spiritual practice?

Part Four: Reading the Bible

Why should Disciples of Christ read the Holy Scriptures? The answer may be obvious, but Christians should read the Bible for a few reasons. They should want to know God because that is what eternal life is (John 17:3). They should go to the word of God to get the God of the Word. It is important to read to give a rational defense of the faith, but people who read His word ultimately need Him. By God’s grace, He has revealed Himself through His word because He has taken the initiative to make Himself known to sinners, which is the only way sinners would know Him.

           

This is critical because as individuals know God, they grow spiritually. They get to know what God is like, what He likes, and what He hates. Essentially, they get to know about God’s attributes. As redeemed creatures, it is our duty to read Scripture to know Yahweh. Consider the words of R. Kent Hughes, in his Christian classic Disciplines of a Godly Man: “You can never have a Christian mind without reading the Scriptures regularly because you cannot be profoundly influenced by that which you do not know” (Hughes, 1991, p.77). Reading God’s word is a crucial element towards spiritual growth.

Jesus Christ, the God-man, read the Hebrew Bible and was able to fight temptation when tempted by Satan in the wilderness (Matthew 4). He fought temptation with the word of God; this is a model for how Christians need to deal with temptation. It is a constant struggle in the Christian life to fight sin. However, since the Holy Spirit is living inside believers, they have the power to fight sin. We have God’s word. Really think about that reality. We have God’s word! Let’s continue to pray and dive into the text to get to know God.

Part Five: Heart-Shepherding

A shepherd is someone who leads, guides, and takes care of sheep. The metaphor for believers is one who takes care of his or her own heart. The method of doing that is to preach the gospel to oneself. Essentially, this sums up the Christian life. The gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ. It encompasses Christ suffering, God raising Him from the dead, and now He calls all men to repent and believe. The good news of Christ deals with every issue of life.

A person can benefit greatly and grow spiritually if they can have this event understood in greater detail when trial and tribulations come into his or her life. We need a picture of Christ’s love for sinners, and we need to understand His work to understand how it impacts us. Tedd Tripp writes, “The law of God is not easy for natural man. Its standard is high and cannot be achieved apart from God's supernatural grace. God’s law teaches us our need of grace” (Tripp, 1995, p. xx). An individual taking care of his or her heart is imperative in order godliness to grow.

The nature of the heart is deceitful and wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). Jesus said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of a man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person” (Mark 7: 20-23). Believers are prone to sin because of their heart disposition from birth. Because of this, contemplating on the wondrous cross is needed for growth in the Christian life.

Proverbs 4:23 records the biblical command of guarding one’s own heart because out of it flows the spring of life. John Macarthur writes, “The heart is the depository of all wisdom and the source of whatever affects speech, sight, and conduct” (Macarthur, 2005, p.702). No one graduates from the spiritual exercises. This is a lifelong adventure in which we are depending upon the Holy Spirit. We all need Him to help us pray, read Scripture, and shepherd our hearts.

Are Women Dangerous To Pastors? by Dennae Pierre

As a woman whose vocation is in the context of local church ministry, I have the honor of working alongside many pastors on a day-to-day basis. Which is why when there is a breaking headline in the Christian news world that a prominent pastor has resigned due to marital unfaithfulness, it always saddens me for many reasons.

First, the devastation on the family is massive. At the end of the day, no matter how many people you lead, one thing I find humbling as a leader is the continual reminder that family serves as a reminder to us that it does not matter if you lead tens of thousands or if you lead a church of one hundred: to your children, you are simply a dad or a mom; and to your spouse, you are simply a husband or a wife. To see our sin affect our children and spouse is gut-wrenching. In times like this, my prayers primarily revolve around the suffering family.

Then, there is the reality of the church family or the wider network of people who are influenced by a pastor which must bear the cost of their leader’s sin. We are all prone to filter the cost of our sin through a very individualistic lens. We see our sin as primarily impacting our own relationships with the Lord and maybe, for very grievous sin, our immediate family as well—but times like this serve to remind leaders that there is always a cost to the family of God. Both our sanctification, as well as the consequences of our sin, benefit and cost the community we are embedded in. Times like this bring out both the beautiful aspects of the bride of Christ, as well as many insensitive comments that remind us (and the watching world) that we are still a spotted and wrinkled bride. 

But, specifically, I want to write as a woman serving in ministry alongside many men. High profile pastor infidelity like this typically triggers a response of articles encouraging leaders not to meet one-on-one with women, even in public settings. Jokes are made about staying away from your assistant. Attitudes surface that imply all women are dangerous: “good pastors” protect themselves from them through instituting policies and practices that keep them from developing a friendship with a woman.

The practice of not having female friendships does not ultimately prevent adultery. Neither does the commitment to not meet, even in public settings like coffee shops, prevent pastors from committing adultery. If you have spent anytime in vocational ministry, then you know several pastors who have held to that rule for most of their ministry and still end up committing adultery. Leaders do not accidentally slip into an affair. Affairs start long before a one-on-one meeting; they begin in the mind and heart. 

It begins with entertaining lustful thoughts about another, or catching yourself thinking about them when you are not together in ways that feed your pride—wondering what you can do or say to impress them or garner their attention. It starts with not deeply investing in your own marriage and entertaining an idea that someone else would treat you better (and feeding the kind of pride it takes to sustain the belief that you deserve something better than what God’s already given you). In a church setting, pastors will interact with women and, hopefully, more and more are finding ways to bring women leaders into their circle of influence in order to disciple and encourage them to serve their churches through the gifts God has given them. If, in this process, a female becomes a temptation, then there are two responses godly men can practice.

First, recognize there is more then one category of women the Bible gives us. If she is acting or begins to act like a Proverbs 5 women, then follow the biblical wisdom God gives us to guard your life. Keep to a path far from her and do not go near the door of her house (Proverbs 5:7-8). But if your interactions with this woman proves that she is more of a Proverbs 31 woman, then you do not need the same protection from that kind of woman that wisdom speaks to in Proverbs 5. A Proverbs 31 woman is one who postures herself in such a way that it is noticeable that her husband can have full confidence in her. She brings him good and never harm. A strong leader, a good pastor, should be able to discern between the two (Proverbs 31:11-12).

Yet, it is still possible, given our fallen world, to be leading and still find yourself attracted to or drawn towards someone of the opposite sex. The answer is not to pull away from that particular person, especially if that person is a trustworthy colleague in ministry. The answer is to practice self-control while you take the time to pursue greater love for the woman (or man) who sin has morphed into an object that fills your imagination.

The answer is not a blanket legalistic rule that protects you from all womankind thereby dehumanizing and objectifying us as a people who godly men need to be "protected" from. But there are habits and disciplines that can be put in place that train ourselves to view the other gender through the biblical lens we have been given to view each other—as brothers and sister. Pulling away and drawing a boundary with someone who has been nothing but professional, respectful, and kind to you is unloving in the name of legalism. The real answer is to love that person with a deeper brotherly love.

The problem between men and women in the church is not infidelity. The problem is not cultivating this brother/sister relationship with the church body. You may need to be alone in a hotel room to have sex with a woman who is not your spouse, but lust for approval, sex, or admiration can happen in the lobby on a Sunday between services. As I read articles about what pastors should do to "protect" themselves, I find myself wondering if the goal is to have a bare minimum standard that we don't commit adultery or if the goal is that we learn to relate to each other as brothers and sisters participating together fully in God's kingdom, free of the sin that prevents that. 

The latter is much harder than the former to cultivate, and it must start with realizing that it isn't about just having an affair with someone. It actually isn't just about you at all. Entertaining sexual thoughts about a man or woman who is not your spouse, trying to attract his or her attention or approval, finding your pride stirred by his or her respect—all of that is unloving to the other person, to your spouse, and to your church community. It isn't really being the brother or sister you have been called to be, and it both objectifies them and robs the body of Christ from the beautiful practice of brotherly love.

Think about your relationship with your biological siblings. Brothers and sisters are not “careful” around one another; they do not “guard” their conversations. They have a particular way in which they relate to one another that makes it obvious to all that they are siblings. A sister is not someone you are trying to draw the respect of to feed your ego, because a sister has seen the moments where you are a complete idiot and still loves you. Your siblings see your greatest faults and still love and care for you. You don't care to project an image that attracts them because, as siblings, you already have the deepest status of relationship possible and the only type of human relationship that we will carry with us into eternity. 

Words cannot really describe what it feels like to be in settings where men feel they have to protect themselves from you. It's dehumanizing. The pervasive struggle of leaders with sexual sin is not the fault of women anymore than the pervasive racism in our midst is the fault of minorities having a different skin color. The struggle comes from being embedded in a culture that worships consumerism and sexuality. The pollution in our air is so thick that it then colors the lenses in which we view all relationships around us.

As a sister to many dear brothers I deeply love, I can do nothing about changing the fact that I'm female. If my femaleness makes me dangerous, then the only way I can love them is through my absence. But as a leader who is female, I can be safe by constantly striving to be a better sister—not just in the times we meet, but in every thought, every attitude, and every action when we are apart. Where I fail to do that in even the smallest ways, basking in the Gospel of grace and mercy deepens my love for God and simultaneously my brothers and sisters.  It is a constant practicing of coming to the Lord to clean me from that pollution of consumerism and sexuality that colors the way I see everything and seeking to have the Lord's eyes and His heart for the brothers around me. Similarly, had the pastors and men in my life not treated me like a sister, I would have never had the opportunity to be nurtured, discipled, and developed by some of the greatest pastors, leaders, and thinkers to be positioned for leadership opportunity. 

When my husband and I say our final goodbye, we will not meet in eternity as husband and wife, but as brother and sister. There is great richness in living in a deep community practicing this authentic brother-sister relationship that we will enjoy for all eternity, co-laboring together in His mission, and serving one another in the deepest ways possible. Love protects the other from harm and from sin, but it does not protect the other from itself. 

Between You and Me: A Conversation with Estrella Payton (and Jennifer Bell)

Estrella Payton just finished her Master of Fine Arts degree at Arizona State University, so Watch Out! There’s an Artist-At-Large! For her big MFA finale, she had her own show at the Night Gallery in Tempe. Here’s a provocative article on “Between You and Me,” which is representative of something known as installation art. Before we begin, I would like to mention that my own experience with installation art is pretty minimal. I read I’m Having So Much Fun Here Without You by Courtney Maum last year, and that’s about an installation artist. Additionally, I’ve seen bits and pieces here and there at galleries, the Phoenix Museum of Art, and even MOMA in New York City, back in the day. Maybe some of you have seen this in the Phoenix Museum. Estrella, does this count? “Clown Torture” by Bruce Nauman sticks in my mind, however. What is this?

Let’s introduce Estrella before we really get into it. Estrella was born in San Juan, Puerto Rico and raised in Kansas City, Missouri. She moved to the Valley of the Sun—that’s the Phoenix-area—with her husband James in 2012 to pursue her Master of Fine Arts degree in Printmaking and Interdisciplinary Studies. She received her Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from the Kansas City Art Institute in 2007.

Her recent studio work focuses on making visible the invisible barriers between people. She is an observer of people, especially their interactions with each other in a space. Her research on power and privilege, cultural conditioning, and systemic inequality combined with her lived experience as a Stateside Puerto Rican drives her motivation to complicate physical spaces to reorient a viewer’s experience and perspective in institutional spaces.

Jennifer: I’m sorry to begin so basically, but I’m wondering if you could answer three questions for me. What is Art? (Ha! Not too massive, is it?) What does it mean to be a Christian artist? And, finally, what exactly is installation art?

Estrella:  Wow. Reams and reams of paper have been used to attempt to answer your first question.

What is Art?! Even the most fervent art lovers can be left dumbfounded by reading one short essay on contemporary art theory. For example, today (in NYC) I chatted with an abstract painter in her studio, visited is a super upscale gallery containing new media photography, ate free ice cream in Central Park out of a solar-powered truck, and then sat in the Met’s Renaissance painting gallery — ALL are considered art.

Personally, I think art can be something created, expressed, or experienced.

Jennifer: Well, just because I’m difficult and obsessed, let me throw out some curve balls. I sorta think Art has to be more than something created, expressed, or experienced. We all know—or my Facebook friends know—I’m not much of a homemaker. But I make quiche. Is my quiche Art? I create it, largely in my own way since I don’t want to follow directions. Love is expressed, and sex is experienced: Art?

Estrella: Okay, you’re throwing around capital letters now, so this is where a boring conversation about the Art market and Art’s context would come in. The art market is what validates and, in turn, legitimizes what is art. That is an institution. The context of art is super important, too. Think about Duchamp’s work called Fountain, which was actually a public bathroom urinal flipped upside down.

Jennifer: Oh, my goodness. You can handle me, right? I’m pretty difficult. You said that the Art market is what validates and, in turn, legitimizes what is art. As Christians—AS ARTISTS—do we care one lousy bit? Let’s be honest. We’re not in it for the money, are we? In the literary arts, the market has legitimized Fifty Shades of Grey, which is porn and poorly written. I remember reading how it sold more copies in England than any Harry Potter book or the Bible. I’m not even a Harry Potter person, but I felt slighted on behalf of J.K. Rowling.

As a Christian, I have to assert objective meaning, and I believe that Art (with a capital letter) must be definable—clearly, perfectly. I have to look at that urinal, and I have to analyze it in terms of how God defines Art. Now, I say this, but please know, Estrella: I am the first one to thumb my nose at cheesy Christian art or garbage that slaps a Bible verse on it and calls it “Christian.”

As a writer who makes stabs at Art, I have to assert that the market doesn’t drive my artistic agenda. I might be a marketing failure, but I’ll be—wow, mark the pretension here—true to my Art. Isn’t that why they call so many people starving artists?

Estrella: First, I do, in fact, care about the art market and I am certainly “in it” for the money. Obviously (if you’ve glanced at my website), this does not drive my artistic practice, but it not far from my mind. NOT being in it for the money is romantic, completely unsustainable, and a trope of Old World Academia that needs to go away.

[Picture Jennifer shyly pushing a strand of grey hair behind her ear.]

Have I volunteered or interned in good faith for projects I believe in? Absolutely. But to not expect to be fairly [read: financially] compensated for work that I do as a visual artist and project manager is not only diminishing the more than fifteen years of specialized art education and art administration skills that I have, it also diminishes the efforts of my peers. This isn’t a taste or preference thing. This is about capitalism and survival. (Read Jay-Z’s Decoded for a beautiful demystification of what it means to thrive in a cutthroat industry.)

The art market, in a way, is simply an economic manifestation of the current pulse of artists who are in tune with their time and place. Those with collecting power [read: money and influence] seize the opportunity to be a part of the culture that artists are making, thus bringing awareness of these artists’ works to the masses.

Also, even though literature is an art form, I believe it functions as a very different species regarding economy.

But, honestly, if readers of this blog are interested in this type of conversation about art, I’d actually direct them to this super interesting interview with a digital artist named Rafael Rozendaal. These guys do a better job of explaining things and Rozendaal’s work is fun to look at in this context.

Jennifer: But do tell me about Christian Artists.

Estrella: Ugh. What does it mean to be a Christian artist? Honestly, I do not think that is a fair label. Do we ask this question to Christian plumbers? Christian construction workers? Christian dentists?

These labels probably mean something different for every person who finds herself in each category simultaneously. Also, the art created as a part of the Renaissance/Reformation was mostly done as commissioned work for churches and wealthy patrons. Not just for the love of the Good News. To be honest, a lot of it was propagandistic against corruption in the church and the Roman Empire.

As for myself, I fall into a category of a mostly-vocational artist who expresses what I am passionate about and feels an overwhelming entitlement to get paid doing so. I have a lot of day jobs and will probably always have them. Sometimes, that looks like managing other artists’ large projects that are meaningful to me. Sometimes, it’s dreaming about cooking good food for people while teaching about food advocacy. Sometimes, it is working collaboratively with others. Sometimes, it looks like me being selfish because I need to be alone in studio.

And what is installation art? First off, I’d like to clarify that Bruce Nauman is a performance artist, as well as a multi-disciplinary and media artist. One could consider the physicality of his Performance Corridor more installation than the video you linked above, but otherwise he doesn’t really fall into that category. He is actually one of my favorite artists. I love the minimalism and power in his works on surveillance, movement, and discipline.

So, installation art is another highly contentious art term. There are many contemporary artist and non-artists that throw it around a bit casually, which is totally understandable, actually. It’s kind of vague. Simply put, installation art transforms a viewer’s perception on space. The work is usually three-dimensional or multi-disciplinary and may involve activating all senses—touch, sound, sight, smell and, yes, even taste!

Jennifer: Estrella, I know I can get overly contentious on this topic, so please tell me to bug-off if you’d like—or tell me if I cross the line. We both come from the world of Academia, where people go nuts over their theories that many deem totally irrelevant to “real” life (whatever that means). And we’ve both been enmeshed in the Art World, albeit different kinds of Art. I’m pretty well-versed in the literary arts, but you’re the expert in the visual arts here. So I don’t want to step on toes. Just go with me on this, or tell me I’m an idiot?

First, I’m glad you’re speaking positively about Nauman, because I dismissed him as a freak.

Second, I love this idea of transforming a viewer’s perception—but . . . is that Art, or is it just interesting? Is there a difference between a good idea and Art? A news show on the evils of racism may be an excellent display of shaking up previously held notions, however it is not the same thing as, say, Django Unchained, Quentin Tarantino’s film, which I think shakes up ideas too—but in an artistic way. My kids’ drawings, though precious, are not the same as Monet paintings.

I think I’m making some presumptions here. You tell me if I’m missing my own blindspots. I do elevate the Arts. I have totally been called elitist by dear friends. I think Art is special and Artists are special people. That’s one assumption.

(interrupting) Estrella: I’ve got to respond with the art market and art context bit, as before. The news is in a news report context - recognized media outlets for news. Unless a news report is mistakenly subverted like HG Well’s War of the Worlds broadcast! Your kids’ drawings are up on your refrigerator (or were and then you secretly threw them away because seriously how long are you supposed to keep those things?) and Monet’s paintings are in recognized museums around the world.

A couple of differences between a good idea (something never manifested?) and art (something realized to completion) is intention and execution.

Additionally, not all art is intended for an uninitiated audience and that’s just that. Doesn’t make it any less valid if you don’t “get it.” It wasn’t made for you.

Basquiat’s paintings, for example, may sometimes be dismissed as naive or amateurish by an untrained viewer. He was a punk kid graffiti writer who was involved in a multitude of subcultural things, but he hustled and was constantly working and eventually met Andy Warhol. Warhol legitimized his work and collaborated with him, which catapulted Basquiat’s career and notoriety. You brought up Monet above…hello?! Bad boy French Impressionist! He was the Father of Impressionism because he was fed up with the traditional conventions of how paint was used. Even the term Impressionism was like a dirty word that this new group of outcasts wore like a badge of honor. It’s funny how time and personal taste becomes a sort of erasure for the nitty-gritty of how things become conservative or culturally appropriate.

Jennifer: Well, of course, I agree with you here. But that’s because, yes, humans are not good barometers for defining art. We need to define it in a more God-centric, less culturally-enmeshed way. Basquiat, Banksy, Duchamp, Nauman—these guys need to be held up to how God defines Art.

I also think I’m probably sounding like a conservative Christian, though I’m not sure how—probably in my Nauman-phobia. I look at it, and think, Not Art.

I think, also, I defer to my conservative Christian friend, R.C. Sproul, on this. He did this great CD series on the Arts: Recovering the Beauty of the Arts. Admittedly, it’s been a while since I listened, but the defining features of Art had to do with Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. Art must have these three things—though it might be in an ironic way. For example, Flannery O’Connor may reveal the Ugly Truth. Beauty, likewise, might be revealed by showing ugliness. I’m thinking of a recent film I loved: August, Osage County.  Goodness may be obviously virtuous, though that’s often too easy, or it may be more complex—like revealing the goodness of form in black and white photography or the goodness of melody and rhythm in Led Zep.

What do you think?

Estrella: Wow. I’m not sure I agree with your following comment: “We need to define it in a more God-centric, less culturally-enmeshed way. Basquiat, Banksy, Duchamp, Nauman—these guys need to be held up to how God defines Art.” What do you mean by God-centric? When I read that, I hear that you (or people) have decided what is God-centric. That seems strange and limiting to me. God allows for all people, artists included, to exist in the context of a broken world and then reflect on their experience within it. As an artist, I find it important to reflect and recognize the human experience. Also, I really don’t think we can even begin to understand how God would define art when we can’t even fully understand or define biological creation. I prefer to think of art as a moment when a bit of the world is revealed—no matter how nasty, beautiful, truthful, false, or otherwise.

Additionally, I have not listened to Sproul’s work, so I can’t really comment on his specific theory of truth, beauty, and goodness as a definitive feature of art. However, it’s my understanding that he is a theologian and not an art historian or art writer. Perhaps the most appropriate response to Sproul’s ideas should be considered in a discussion on liturgical art forms, which are wonderful and probably should be recovered in an active and contemporary way in the Church.

I can, however, return to my interest in installation. Installation art, by its inception and very “definition,” defies being identifiable by medium. Theorists Jean Baudrillard and Marshall McLuhan both write/wrote about how the confusion of the medium and the message became the first great formula of a new era of art. Just as soon as one might think they’ve written a definitive work on what art is and is not (Who is doing the “not” part, anyway?! Get a life.), a new way of defining art comes along. Just as soon as you think you “get it,” someone else is going to turn around and flip the script on all of your previous perceptions. Come ooooon—it’s interesting, isn’t it?

Jennifer:  Oh, it’s very interesting—but it’s ultimately an affirmation of relativism. Art is relative. Art is subjective. Can this work with an objective God?

Estrella: I sure hope so.

Jennifer: I really appreciate your willingness to talk to me about all this. I don’t know about you, but my blood pressure probably rises just a bit—and I’m seriously moved by your candor and forthrightness.

Side note: I went to the Phoenix Art Museum this past week to see the Andy Warhol portrait exhibit (my mind reeling, of course), and I thought of you.

Before ending, though, there are a few specific questions I’d like to address about your work. First, would you discuss your MFA piece, Between You and Me? What are you communicating and why? Are you happy with it? How is distinctly Estrella? (I think the MFA thesis is often, but not always, definitive in a way of the artist.)

Estrella: My MFA thesis exhibition was a large-scale installation at a gallery in Tempe Marketplace. It was meant to be experienced by a lot people, especially an uninitiated audience. Instead of answering what I am communicating, I’d like to share questions that I ask about my work and that particular installation: How can you freely navigate a space that is designed to someone else’s specificity? What has been built between us? Between you and me, there is an infinite gulf that must be traversed in order to seek some common understanding. I believe these questions are relevant in regards to U.S. history past and present, as well as within our own intimate circles.

Jennifer: Would you talk a little about what you’re currently doing in New York?

Estrella: I am working for an arts collective based in Greenpoint (Brooklyn), as well as participating in a professional development practicum, and gathering research for future projects.

Jennifer: You mentioned something to me about a walking piece. Would you discuss that?

Estrella: Yes. I’ve been interested in walking as part of my studio practice as well as an action in and of itself. Walking can be a powerful symbol (peace walks, pilgrimages, marches, parades), but also hold power in its own right (i.e., freely walking down the street as a woman of color without fear of being accosted or otherwise singled-out). I have participated in and curated several projects and exhibitions over the last year that pertain to walking. In NYC, I’m especially interested in the interactions and walking experiences by water. The congested city is surrounded by water of all kinds, but sometimes people can go a really long time without actually physically interacting with it. I can relate, having been land-locked the majority of my life. Details about one of my specific projects can be found here.

Jennifer: And now what? You’re post-MFA, an artist: where do you go from here?

Estrella: I’m not interested in limiting myself to conventions of success or production. I’ve got specific plans for long-term and short-term projects on the horizon. I’m open to where my relationships and interests will take me. It’s all very exciting. I lead a great and complicated life.

Jennifer: Thank you, Estrella! I appreciate your candor and willingness to talk to me, despite my Old World Conservativism. I can’t wait to see you what you’re up to next!

Pastor V’s Shout-Outs by Vermon Pierre

Shout-out to:

1. Alabama Shakes and their recent album, Sound & Color. Man, that’s some good music making right there. It’s this blend of Gospel, Southern Rock, and Motown soul music that is truly unique. This blend doesn’t work well for some of the songs on here. But for the ones where it does work well (like “Don’t Want to Fight”) – whew wee!

2. Republica Empanada in downtown Mesa. I was part of panel on creative placemaking at the Mesa Arts Center on Monday night, and they had an after-party at Republica afterwards. Wow, those empandas were great! Like, seriously savory and tasty. I just might be willing to pack an extra set of clothes and my passport and make the trip all the way out to Mesa to try them out again.

3. Dave Pell and his article, “Control Balt Delete: Five Thoughts About Baltimore Organized Into a List Because the Last Thing Anyone Needs is Another Thought Piece About Baltimore.”

I appreciate articles that try to give a fuller analysis of current events. This is especially appreciated with the many recent racially-tinged events of the last year or so.

Pell notes, for example, that “kids living in violent neighborhoods don’t want fewer police and less protection, they want more of both” and that “the police in our most violent neighborhoods have a difficult, thankless, dangerous job that often fails to reward those who exhibit the best traits we could hope for.” Yes, yes, yes! At the same time, we must recognize that “where the criminal justice system fails to respond vigorously to violent injury and death, homicide becomes endemic. African Americans have suffered from just such a lack of effective criminal justice, and this, more than anything, is the reason for the nation’s long-standing plague of black homicides … The system’s failure to catch killers effectively made black lives cheap.”

Our Father’s Name by Anthony Vasquez

Our family has now been in India for a couple of months, and it has been an amazing experience. All the adjustments that one person or family has to make: for instance, learning how to fairly bargain with most merchants or how to best avoid stomach issues by learning the right way to clean produce. We have experienced so many practical aspects of adjusting to life in India that I sometimes wonder if we are being stretched or just broken into different pieces. It’s often said that by moving into a new culture, you learn more about yourself than you thought you ever would or would want to. Indeed, there are so many ways that the Lord reveals Himself to us.

For me, transitioning our life has revealed a life-long pain that I have always wished would go away. Growing up in a broken home, I always struggled with the harsh reality of not having my father around. Despite all of our attempts to reconcile our relationship, there is still a lack in my life and residual pain.  Now, here in India, on any official documentation, a person needs to sign, there is always a line after your name where you must provide your father’s name. Even for our Indian peers, the amount of documentation the government requires is comical.

And so after signing a rental agreement, one notes his or her father’s name. After registering as a foreigner, one notes his or her father’s name.  After registering at the local police office, one notes his or her father’s name.  After signing for one’s child’s school application, one notes his or her father’s name. After opening up a new bank account, one notes his or her father’s name. After signing up for a new phone plan, one notes his or her father’s name. You get the picture: it goes on and on.

After the third time I had to take note of my father’s name, my heart began to scream. Wait a second.  My father has nothing to do with this. I am getting this done, I am my own, and he has nothing to do with any of this. And each new time I had to acknowledge my father’s name, the Spirit pressed into me and called for repentance of my own blackened heart. I began to ask others why there is such a need to identify one’s father’s name on all official documentation. I quickly learned that individuality is not a virtue in this culture, as it seems to be in Western cultures. In this culture, the family system is an integral aspect of one’s identity, community is valued and prioritized over the individual, and fathers bear responsibility in practical and symbolic ways that can be both positive and beautiful reminders that we belong to someone. I seriously thought that, for the most part, I would be helping people see the powerful truth about ideas having consequences. But, instead, God has revealed a piece of my broken heart and all the pain that still resides through an idea in this culture and probably in many more cultures around the world. We belong to someone, to each other, to family, to parents, and there is more weight to that than the individualistic culture that I grew up in. I thank our Lord for this beautiful aspect of India. He is my father, I have a father, and I am a father.

I will paint all this pain.

Give Peace A Chance? ANOTHER FABULOUS DISCUSSION BETWEEN SEAN McGINTY AND JENNIFER BELL

Sean: So our last discussion revolved around the popularity of zombies. Continuing with the theme of flesh-eating monsters, this time out we'll be talking about politicians! Joking, joking!

Jennifer, what are your thoughts on the relationship between politics and the Christian? My own feeling is that the American church has let itself become far too identified with the political system in general, but what's the appropriate relationship? Should churches as organizations take active roles in politics? Should even individual Christians do so?

Jennifer: Well, I have several initial thoughts. First, we’re all—by nature—“political” beings. Citizens. Under Authority. Desirous of Justice, Order, Ethics. (Hey, we see this in freakin’ “Walking Dead”). This is part of human nature. So, there’s that. Second, I think the popular understanding of political involvement—taking part in public affairs? Voicing policy opinions?—is ultimately a matter of integrity: saying what you mean, meaning what you say. Putting your money where your mouth is. That sort of thing? Integrity is the issue.

That said, is there an important distinction between a political Church and a political individual?

I think you should talk, though. Tell me why you think the church is overly political? Is that fair? Then, I’ll talk a little about how I think you may be right, though politics are inescapable too?

Sean: I'm not sure I'd describe the church as overly political per se, just that we've allowed ourselves to be too often viewed within the framework of politics. So, for example, I've thankfully never heard a sermon extolling the virtues of limited government, but the public perception is that most Christians hold to the Republican Party line on that issue. Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with Christians holding to a view of limited government, but there is something wrong when the church's identity becomes blurred with a political party.

It's important to say here that there are times when political overlap is inevitable. When Scripture directly speaks to a particular topic that has become politicized, such as abortion or homosexuality, Christians must hold to the biblical position. This may cause us to be associated with a given party, but we should make it clear that we're not influenced by the party's opinion, only by the Word. (The danger here is that Christians might be played as pawns by politicians who give lip service to our concerns but have no real Christian conviction of their own. But that topic brings us down a deep rabbit hole . . .)

In areas that the Bible doesn't speak to, like a preferred form of government, I'm of the opinion that the church should not take a stand. Individual Christians might but, even here, it shouldn't be at the expense of spreading the Gospel.

I suppose my main concern is that Christians have been influenced by political parties to die on hills that we really, as Christians, have no vested interest in. A balanced budget may be a good thing, but it's not something that the Church should be concerned about. Of course, the whole thing becomes far more complicated when we look at the individual Christian's role in politics.

Jennifer:  I’m not entirely sure I’m following you. I might need some clarification. I do think I can agree with you on the problematic nature of the Church becoming too closely associated with a given political party. But, if possible, could you help me out on some things?

Can you give me an example of what you mean when you say that Christians might hold to a political position at the expense of spreading the Gospel? What does that mean? What does that look like?

And then what is this dying-on-hills thing, without our vested interests?

If you answer this, I might offer this pretty strong position: no political issue is neutral.

Sean: Well, when I’m talking about dying on hills, I’m referring to elevating an issue to a place of primary importance. Allowing it to become the thing that we’re willing to fight tooth and nail over.

Let’s use capitalism and socialism as examples. Scripture prescribes neither, although often, in the U.S., we’ve seen Christians giving the implicit impression that capitalism is the Christian system. I’m not saying here that Christians should or shouldn’t be Capitalists; I’m merely saying that, since Scripture doesn’t directly speak to the matter, it’s not appropriate to allow the system to become closely related to Christianity.

  

In terms of no political issue being neutral, I’d agree with you in the sense that, as Romans 14:23 states, “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” So, yes, insofar as our political values are informed (or not informed) by our faith, they are not neutral. But does this mean that there is a Christian position for every political topic?

Jennifer: I actually think that there might be. Isn’t this part of dominion? Of taking dominion? How else are we to live in the world, but not be of the world? Maybe this all depends on one’s understanding of eschatology.

If we are to love our neighbors, care for widows and orphans, have dominion, take thoughts captive, etc., then maybe we are—by necessity—required to come to terms with every little nuance of the world, including limited government or balancing the budget.

That said, our affiliation isn’t with a political party but with the Kingdom of God. I’m not totally sure what that looks like, but I know that I’m not personally thrilled about being associated with the Right or the Left. I definitely agree with you on the problematic nature of Christianity being linked to particular political parties. For me, personally, it’s always been a little embarrassing. Sometimes, I really just want to distance myself from the scene, if you know what I mean.

So, let’s say you’re right. Now what? How should the Church respond to political realities? It becomes terribly messy to figure out how we should systematically handle public policy. Allow me to throw out some random, haphazardly put together questions for you.

Separation of Church and State: Realistic? Problematic? What are your thoughts?

Gun Control: Is the Bible silent on this?

What about feeding the poor, taking care of widows, pooling our funds: are we talking socialism?

Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby: yay or nay?

These questions are terribly unfair, but humor me. I think the ultimate question has to do with what should a Christian do—as opposed to what should a Christian not do. What do you think? How, then, do Christians behave politically?

Sean: Wow, that’s a lot of questions! I think how a person goes about answering them depends on one’s understanding of the relationship between the Church and the State. There are two major views a Christian is likely to come across. The first is the Two Kingdoms model, which holds that God has established two realms of authority (Church and State) with their own set of responsibilities and powers. The second is the Transformational model, which believes that believers help work out God’s redemption of creation through cultural and political vehicles. Both of these views, however, have various subcategories and nuances, so I don’t want to give the impression that either is monolithic. For example, both Luther and Calvin held to a Two Kingdoms model, but they each had different understandings of the details. Luther was largely okay with government involvement in the church, while Calvin was not.

I subscribe to a Two Kingdoms view, so when it comes to separation of Church and State, I think it’s realistic, necessary, and problematic. The Bible makes it fairly clear that living under the New Covenant means observing this division. This become troublesome in that, while we should hope that the State will be fair and just, we shouldn’t be surprised when it isn’t (living in a fallen word). Nevertheless, we’re still called to respect the authority of the state over matters that have been granted to it. Ultimately, I think the Two Kingdoms model better preserves the tension of the Christian life. We’re resurrected, but not yet. The Kingdom has come, but it hasn’t yet been fully consummated. We’re in the world, but not of it.

One of the outgrowths of the Two Kingdoms model is that there’s not a single Christian way to do politics. Let’s use social programs as an example. A Christian might argue for a larger government with a more expansive system in place to care for the needy, or he may feel that a smaller government system should exist to encourage individual independence in the recipients. In both cases, the Christian should be motivated by a love for his or her neighbor. In neither case is the Christian arguing for a method that is explicitly stated in Scripture. I can’t, therefore, say that the Christian model is to expand (or contract) Medicare coverage. What I can say is that, following the Lord’s instruction to love my neighbor, in this situation, I believe Option A is better than Option B.  In any case, the view should not be that the world is a little more redeemed because my preferred political program is in place. Rather, the concern should be to spread the Gospel and make disciples, who will subsequently perform their vocations (including politics) in a fair and just manner.

Jennifer: I do appreciate your Two Kingdom/Transformational response, which I’m embarrassed to admit I’ve never heard before. My gut response is that I’m probably of the Transformational School o’ Thought. This comes, my guess, from an eschatological stance, and my own background in International Relations. When I think of something like human rights or civil rights, my first thought is that, not only is there a required Christian response (to which you would probably agree), but there is also a best Christian response (to which you might not agree?)—and it is unequivocally our responsibility to figure out what that best Christian response is.

At the end of the day, we are responsible for properly responding to issues surrounding both gun control and Chick-Fil-A.

Sean: I'm pretty new to the concepts myself, so I'm right with you. I'm not sure if I'd deny that there's a "best Christian way." My feeling is more that the best way, when it comes to political engagement, isn't always clear, and that Christians have a lot of freedom to take different approaches. The question I keep coming back to is "would advocating for a particular political position qualify for church discipline?" In certain cases where we have clear biblical direction, such as with abortion, I think that would be appropriate. But for the vast majority of political issues, Scripture is fairly silent. In those cases, I think we need to be cautious in our affiliations. Again, that doesn't mean Christian shouldn't be politically involved, but it does mean that we should be hesitant to attach a political position to the name of Christianity.

Jennifer: Thank you, Sean, for your thought-provoking discussion! Please feel free to send us your comments!

The Mark of Cain and the Kingdom of Heaven by Andrew Stravitz

There are two facts about the mark of Cain: first, he was an angry murderer of his own brother; and second, he received mercy to live the life his brother deserved.  And there, at the very start, is the offensive justice of the kingdom of heaven. See Genesis 4.

Jesus said that anyone who is angry with his brother is guilty of murder. Then He taught that the Father of heaven knows we’re all evil, and so we should ask whatever we want, because He always gives good gifts to His wicked children, so that we also may have undeserved life like Cain. See Matthew 5-7.

In fact, He gave us His own life—He became our Abel. The Lord's Prayer is the plea for a life we don't deserve in the kingdom of heaven: the Heavenly Father, the hallowed name, the accomplished will, the meeting of kingdoms, the daily bread, the forgiveness of sin, the forgiveness of enemies, the escape from temptation. And all these things are given to us in Jesus's own life. In Jesus Himself, these requests for undeserved life are answered. Jesus Himself is our Abel, whose life we don't deserve and yet receive. See Matthew 6.

We all have on us the mark of Cain: radical guilt and radical mercy.  And, like Cain, whose brother's blood cried out against him, we also receive the scandalous justice of grace in the kingdom of heaven. We all have on us the mark of Cain: but even louder than the blood of Abel cried, Jesus's blood shouts to God on our behalf.  We have "come to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." See Hebrews 12:22-24.