Evangelism (conversation) is not to be feared

When we preach on evangelism, emphasizing the struggle Christians may go through often does a disservice because many people outside of the church have a hunger and a desire to talk about spiritual things. Even if they are sometimes cutting, they want to talk (in my experience)--and those are the ones we need to talk with in particular (not to or at: it's dialogue).  Christians in America don't need to be told about more things they need to fear, we get that enough from politics.

Some notes from my pastor this Sunday:
1) It's not us, it's Jesus.
2) It's in his name alone.
3) Healing courage and faith are all from the Spirit.

To the Holy Spirit and to us...

Acts 15:22-29 (NET)

15:22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided ⁶⁷  to send men chosen from among them, Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, ⁶⁸  leaders among the brothers, to Antioch ⁶⁹  with Paul and Barnabas. 15:23 They sent this letter with them: ⁷⁰ 

From the apostles ⁷¹  and elders, your brothers, ⁷²  to the Gentile brothers and sisters ⁷³  in Antioch, ⁷⁴  Syria, ⁷⁵  and Cilicia, greetings! 15:24 Since we have heard that some have gone out from among us with no orders from us and have confused ⁷⁶  you, upsetting ⁷⁷  your minds ⁷⁸  by what they said, ⁷⁹  15:25 we have unanimously ⁸⁰  decided ⁸¹  to choose men to send to you along with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul, 15:26 who ⁸²  have risked their lives ⁸³  for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ⁸⁴  15:27 Therefore we are sending ⁸⁵  Judas and Silas ⁸⁶  who will tell you these things themselves in person. ⁸⁷  15:28 For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us ⁸⁸  not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules: ⁸⁹  15:29 that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols ⁹⁰  and from blood and from what has been strangled ⁹¹  and from sexual immorality. ⁹²  If you keep yourselves from doing these things, ⁹³  you will do well. Farewell. ⁹⁴

What a curious thing to say.  It seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us.  How remarkable that the author (traditionally, Luke), would say it in such a way.  Remarkable and enigmatic.  It is Scripture after all.

I would love to know how they knew that it seemed best to the Holy Spirit.  In a similar vein I would love to know what Jesus was writing with his finger in the dirt (see note 10).

I would have written it this way today:
"For it seemed best to us, after we prayed over it and discussed it amongst ourselves not to place..."

How fortunate we are that I was not entrusted to write Scripture.


====
NET note:
⁸⁸ tn This is the same expression translated “decided” in Acts 15:22, 25. BDAG 255 s.v. δοκέω 2.b.β lists “decide” as a possible gloss for this verse, and this translation would be consistent with the translation of the same expression in Acts 15:22, 25. However, the unusually awkward “the Holy Spirit and we have decided” would result. Given this approach, it would be more natural in English to say “We and the Holy Spirit have decided,” but changing the order removes the emphasis the Greek text gives to the Holy Spirit. Thus, although the similarity to the phrases in 15:22, 25 is obscured, it is better to use the alternate translation “it seems best to me” (also given by BDAG): “it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us.” Again the scope of agreement is highlighted.

Local/global missions

"Famine, affluence, and morality" (2008 post, UMD summary) has informed my thought process on the necessity of philanthropy and aid. We are bound by morality to care for those that need. I would further stipulate that Christians have a greater call not based in morality, but grace. Echos of a divine gift. Given the myriad need, painfully evident, how do we balance global and local efforts?

Is that a question worth asking? Each community has its own needs and its own resources. Some have more than others. This wealth/poverty gradient tends to guide giving. If everyone carried out the conclusion that Singer comes to, we wouldn't need to have this decidedly capitalist conversation. Be that as it may, missions organizations must consider opportunity costs.

And suddenly we are met with a value question. Who is most worth it?

Placing effort and resources in developing nations seems like it would be the obvious choice because of the larger gap in standard of living. But how effective and efficient is this? Do foreign organizations properly understand the needs at the local level? How important is it to be part of the community being served?

On the other hand, we know much more about the needs in our communities we live in, but the cause may not seem as mighty or desperate.

In striking a balance there really can't be a right answer.  I think local and global missions serve different purposes.

Global (or efforts outside of one's own community) mission tends to have a huge impact on the folks who leave their environment to enter into another community to give.  It leaves a mark.  People change after these experiences.  Whatever value they may impart to the new community in service is dwarfed by the person they become after seeing realities that are raw, broken or harsh.  It gives perspective.  Many come back and explain it this way: "they blessed me more than I blessed them."  Cliche phrases aside, perspectives shift.

Local mission on the other hand is done in one's own community, a known place.  It might not be sexy, you probably won't fly thousands of miles to face culture shock.  One doesn't need to go far to find people that need Jesus.  No matter how far you go though, mission validates another human being--it assures that something isn't right in that place.  Proximity is powerful.  How valuable is an assurance from a neighbor?  Very, I think.

I don't think balance is something to worry about.  Local and global mission drive each other and reinforce both efforts--something I've observed and been involved in directly.  In fact, David Mathis at desiringGod.org describes it as a seamless garment.

The garment is worth it.

What's your perspective?  Is there a balance to be struck?

Blind faith

An upsetting observation I've made in Christianity today has to do with the concept of blind faith.  Specifically, I take issue with the value placed in blind faith--the idea that true faith must be blind.  This is touted both by fundamentalist Christians and by members of the new-atheism movement.

The opposite seems more likely.  Faith that results from curiosity and questions and dissatisfaction has been tested and proven.  It has dimension and reason and conflict.  Faith borne of struggle has been places and is dynamic.  Faith with a history is compelling--it has a narrative and a song that it sings.  In many cases, it has almost died.

Is trust more profound if it proceeds from a refusal to engage or approach?  That's never the case.

Does it mean that we don't believe God, or that we're suspicious?  It can.  But maybe it means that we honestly just don't understand all that God is, and that through questions and doubt, we can wrap a little bit of our brains around her/his attributes.

I don't want the church to be satisfied with letting others do our thinking for us.  The pastors I know welcome questions.  They love conversations about tough doctrine.  Pastors are probably ok if you don't take their word for it.  Because they study the Bible, they probably want you to as well.

The FaithFacts article is superb, and I like what they have to say:

God has not told us everything there is to know, but He has told us enough with which to navigate existence.

I'll leave off with an interesting metaphor from Stand to Reason:

The good news about faith is that God honors even the smallest amount. When I fly around the country, I see both seasoned travelers and first-time fliers. The businessmen are relaxed, almost bored, at the thought of flying 500 mph at nearly 40,000 feet above the earth. The grandma on her first flight, however, grips her armrest like her life depends on it. Although the seasoned traveler has more trust (faith) in the airplane, both passengers safely arrive at the destination and at the same time. Their outcome is the same, regardless of how large or little their faith in flying.

Got Questions?         |         Summit         |         FaithFacts         |         Stand to Reason

Faith, confidence and criticism

What does it mean to be confident in your faith?  Confidence in faith sounds like an oxymoron.

Faith is a trust.  It means you are at an information disadvantage and someone has claimed an idea that you cannot personally verify.  And you give them your credence.

I have faith in God.  God is an untestable hypothesis.

What gives me confidence in a concept such as God then?  See Hebrews 11.

1. Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see.
2. For by it the people of old received God’s commendation.
3. By faith we understand that the worlds were set in order at God’s command, so that the visible has its origin in the invisible.

I don't like the idea of being convinced of something that I have no evidence for.  But, I still follow Jesus.  What it comes down to, is that I accept the Bible and the God that is written about in it.

The Bible is a weird book, and I kind of like that about it--full of disaster, calamity, betrayal and love, it doesn't hide much.  My trust is that the God presented in the Bible is real, invisible yes, and honest in his interactions with humanity.

I trust that the story in it about God and her/his followers is true.  I believe that God called a group of Israelites to follow him and that he calls us too.  I like reading about the way the people of old explained who and what God is, and I think that we still try to do that, with our own paltry metaphors.

Faith shouldn't stop us from struggling though.  There is space to be critical of the Bible and of God.  In fact Jacob wrestled with God and then received the name Israel, becoming in essence the first ruler as the father of the twelve tribes.  Kind of an odd turn of events after a struggle with God.

Struggling and questioning only makes having faith harder--depending on your questions, nigh on impossible.  But to me that gives it added dimension and so much more meaning.  So, have confidence, have faith, have questions and have doubts.  You're still welcome at the table.

"Diversity" and the multinorm

My friend Jade writes expressively and poignantly about, well everything.  She posted about diversity in campus ministry and got me thinking.

Jade cuts right to the point with this statement:

Seeking to increase structural diversity (i.e. the people who are participants in the campus ministry) without seeking to increase multicultural competence to honor them once they GET there will always betray a lack of forethought & process.

One of the things that inhibits the development of true diversity and meaningful connections is the retention of a singular "normal" culture.  This is a regard for different cultures that does not recognize the existence of multiple normals.  To me this is particularly apparent in the part of west Michigan where the white, middle class Dutch culture tends to be acknowledged as normal.  I imagine this to be true of most homogenous communities.  Other is often regarded as a curiosity and as a shift from the expected normal.  It takes more than curiosity to promote diversity.

The view of another culture as a curiosity does not allow it to be engaged meaningfully, especially if it is relegated to an object of entertainment.  Culture can become an object to be used and discarded at will or impulse, a fun theme.

Unfortunately it can be exhausting to put time into properly understanding and appreciating different cultures.  Culture is how we self-identify, so it takes empathy to do diverse communities properly.  Organizations need to be able to value and support multiple identities.  It starts with people.  It takes the willingness to walk miles and miles and miles in the shoes of other people.  Different people.  People that you might find difficult to identify with.  Cultural fluency is like language fluency in that it takes time and in most cases, immersion.

In my experience, true, beautiful diversity was not coaxed, grown and cultivated by a group of White people, or by a group of Black people or any other homogenous group.  It was supported by, and happened because of heterogeneous community.  See the community toolbox for tips!  Start by accepting anyone that wants to join your group.

Unless we can commit to the development of multiple normals, then we cannot really talk about diversity.  There would be no point.

Being missional in Georgetown township

Being missional is hard.  It took me 24 years to have a missional mindset that worked for me.  Before that, it was a lofty ideal, a thing that good Christians did.  It was a concept I didn't really try to understand because I wasn't that kind of Christian.

Then I arrived at Penn State.  My Christian bubble had burst.  The surface was pricked and the tension broke, collapsing upon itself.  I was terrified and mortified that someone would notice I was a Christian.  They would lambast me and humiliate me in front of my peers.  I would feel stupid, exposed and lose everything.

It didn't take long to make friends among my cohort.  We three, Athos and Aramis and Porthos, from Calvin found friendship among our peers.  For myself, I made some of my first non-Christian friends.  Some were atheist, others agnostic (a self described atheist-agnostic even), some Muslims, others Hindu and many were just apathetic.  It was classes like Transport (Deen), Statistical Thermodynamics, and Reaction Kinetics that really brought us together.  It was confusion and unending problem sets and projects, that kept us together as we pored over our derivations and code.  It was Anupam's understanding of calculus that was so so so superior to mine XD.

And just like that, I had friends who didn't think like me.  In some cases we were diametrically opposed.  And we had lunch together nearly every day.  We drank too much, ate too much (purse bacon) and partied together.  And we had long conversations about politics and about science and about how "I'm right and your tensor has the wrong rank!"  But eventually, about "how can we solve this?"

It was in our second year that we a few of us started having deeper back and forths about meaning and religion and belief and unbelief.  It was coffee and lunch and interviews and dialogue.  It was friendship.  It wasn't Hudsonville and it wasn't Georgetown township.  But it can be.

You like going to that brewpub down the street?  Make a friend there.  No strings attached, a friend.  Do you have neighbors that aren't Christians?  Befriend them and have dinner parties.  Don't steer the dialogue, have conversations.  Did your firm hire a new guy/gal?  Get coffees or beers after work.  Talk about hobbies and dreams.  Those guys and girls on your floor in college that don't go to church?  Spend time with them, watch movies, stay out late doing nothing together.  Cause mischief.

Go where the people who don't know Jesus are.  They aren't going to walk into your church.

But when should I ask them to come to church?  Try this first: work at a friendship.  God doesn't need you.  But that doesn't mean God doesn't want to use you.  God works through Christians that are open to seeing life through in the long term.  That doesn't mean shelving the gospel or hiding your faith.  It means real friendship without conditions and taking the opportunities that God gives you.  Unless we make space and trust for these conversations to happen, they won't.  So make friends and let God work.

Finding God space again

My physical body and motley pile of trappings and belongings have been spirited away from State College for 5 months already.  That went pretty painlessly, though I definitely left it all in the middle of the floor in my parents basement until I had to clear it away for Christmas.  My routine has even made the trip, now that I have work and a schedule that I'm responsible for.  Things look like they're coalescing back to normal on the outside.  On the work side.  On the material side.

If only moving were as simple as transporting collections of atoms.

I'm still moving back emotionally and spiritually.  Those are the parts that give me the most inner turmoil and heartache.  For good reason.

Emotionally
During one of the most intellectually stimulating, stressful, and at times, traumatic periods of my life, I was part of a group of people that were experiencing similar delights, joys and atrocities.  Those bonds don't dissolve (nor would I want them to!), or fade from memory quickly.  The feeling of disjointed connectedness remains, with a physical separation of hundreds of miles.  I feel pangs and memories and aches almost daily.

Friendships change over time and space.  In a way they become windows and views of former places from lofty heights.  The lofty heights of memory, text messages and phone calls don't do friendship justice.  Sharing a cup of coffee or a beer over the phone is...well...inane.  But that is how life forces us to reconcile new places; memories and intermittent contact.  And we drink deeply of the cold, sweet water of reconnection.

Emotionally, I may always straddle the places in life where I've felt and experienced intense emotion.  Everyone does and deals with it in their own ways.  Some ignore the past, some live in the past, and others come to terms with a life of small, constant, distant tugs.  I imagine the latter will always be true for me.  There is too much in the past to forget it, and too much in the future to embrace with open arms.

Spiritually
Perhaps the language of moving and fixed destinations is not appropriate for the topic of a spiritual journey.  However, the setting in any journey does change, and impact the traveler directly, so in that sense I am moving in a different phase of life spiritually.

Life in Penn State Christian Grads (PSCG) was a very stimulating experience.  My head-space was occupied with lofty precipices and even more subterranean lows when it came to questions of faith, meaning and purpose.  There were honest conversations between minds questioning and probing, that received no answers some days and few the next.  Daily struggle was not uncommon, and at times it was exhausting.  Confidence is a quantity that was once prized, but comes to be despicable in many ways.  It seems impossible to return to confidence in anything after a point.  However, despite the unruliness and at times stark contradictory nature of this newer reality, I would never trade this part of my journey.

PSCG is a group of dear friends who cared deeply about each other and still do.  We are scholars from different fields seeking the gospel and life in Jesus, and engaging thoughtfully and honestly with our peers in the hope that they will join us.  We are a missional community.
Throw in the occasional heretical conversation in the "College and Careers" adult bible fellowship that I led at church and you get the mess that I called a spiritual life.   But it took years to cultivate the space for safe, honest questions, and for conversation and dialogue without judgment.  Those opportunities don't materialize from nothing.  God space requires time and effort.

It's taking a while, but I'm finding that space.  Sometimes that space means a small, intimate group during a Sunday night prayer service at the church I grew up in.  At other times it's time spent skyping weekly with two of my closest friends.  God space can be at a brewery for a weekly bible study as easily as it can be at a new church I've found, spending time on Sunday morning in worship.  I'm finding my new God spaces in a new/old place.  Looking forward, I'm excited to see what space I will find in Young Life for eastern Ottawa.  There is space to talk about spiritual things everywhere, it just needs to be cultivated.  YOU can cultivate it.

Biblical womanhood?

[source]

You will be better off reading thoughts on womanhood from a woman's perspective, but I'm a man, so this is as good as I can do (I'll point you to some women though, fear not).

Let's look at one of the quintessential passages on biblical womanhood, often used to define roles, stances and limits.
A first reading of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 might give you the impression that women are to be submissive, silent and deferential to men, if you take it as translated and ignore the context.  It's tempting to stop there and reject women as leaders in the church, particularly if you're a man, because without context that's exactly what Paul (in the Bible, as one of God's inspired authors) is saying.  But context is important.  Here are some examples:

How much less compelling does "the Jungle" by Upton Sinclair become without understanding of the plight of immigrants, wage slavery and the horrors of the meatpacking industry at the time?  What does "1984" mean if you ignore the socialist politics of Europe at the time?  Context means that maybe we can have allegory and symbolism.

Let's look at Paul's statements in verses 11 and 12:

2:11 A woman must learn ¹⁸  quietly with all submissiveness. 2:12 But I do not allow ¹⁹  a woman to teach or exercise authority ²⁰  over a man. She must remain quiet.

I don't know if I like Pauline theology any more...he's starting to sound downright draconian and misogynistic.  I sure wish I knew more about Jewish culture at the turn of the millennium...but wait!  The study note [19] in the NET Bible provides some clarification:

This was a radical and liberating departure from the Jewish view that women were not to learn the law.

Huh.  Not allowed to learn the law at all?  I guess Paul was a bit of a feminist then, eh?  Given that bit of history, maybe Paul qualified his statement in verse 11 with the part in verse 12 about not allowing women to teach or exercise authority because he would have been seen as too radical and not been taken seriously in his letters to Timothy.  If that doesn't seem plausible, let's look look at some more modern examples from American history.

African slave emancipation and eventual civil rights movement

The 13th ammendment was a giant leap.  A giant leap followed by bitter disenfranchisement for people of color throughout the Reconstruction and Jim Crow periods.  In 1896 we even had Plessy vs Ferguson and the beginning of "separate but equal".
Finally in 1964 and 1965 the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed.  Human rights issues take a long time, and we still struggle today with the legacy of this fight.  I find it hard to believe that there would have been widespread acceptance if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been passed in 1865.  It would have been too radical.  History seems to support this.

Women's suffrage

Women's suffrage started state by state, beginning with Wyoming in 1869.  In 1917, Alice Paul was jailed for picketing in front of the Whitehouse, but it took 3 more years until on June 4, 1920 the 19th ammendment was approved by the Senate and later ratified.  It started small, in spurts, and took over 50 years of increasing measures of legality to be fully accepted.  Radical at one time.

Were we not talking about Paul and Timothy and biblical womanhood though?
Ok, let's get back to them.  If Paul had said that women and men should be on equal footing with respect to teaching and preaching and positions of authority in the church, how many people (men, since women weren't really people yet) do you think would have listened?  [Preemptive apology for caps.]  WOMEN DIDN'T EVEN GET TO VOTE IN THE UNITED STATES UNTIL 1920!!!  Radical.

If we contextualize Paul's statements, we lose the literal vision of biblical womanhood as "the best plan for your life is to find a good Christian man who will lead your family and provide enough that you can stay home".  What we find instead is a statement of radical liberation for women at the time (...and now).  Radical liberation sounds more like what Jesus taught:

For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.

and:

'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these.

But don't take my word for it.  Ask a woman what womanhood is for her.  She'll have a better, more informed perspective, impassioned by actual experience as a woman seeking her Savior.  God's plan for her is what womanhood is for her.  That sounds kind of biblical.  Radical.

As far as reading goes: you can start here. And definitely go here (I started here; Rachel Held Evans is da bomb #preachit)!  If you're still reading and interested, there is also this.
A dude wrote this post, which I loved, and it's how I found the 'precious moments' image.

God's honesty: Parable of the Weeds

I don't usually feel like God speaks to me when I read the Bible.  Not like, "Hey Steve, here's what you need to know about me..."  It's usually a feeling or a sense of new understanding, just not a literal phrase or sentence.

Last night was a different story however, thanks to some great friends and the NET version of Matthew 13:24-30.  I'm not talking something audible, but it was as close as I'm comfortable with experiencing.

The insight for this came from the note in verse 25 on the nature of weeds.  I had always understood weeds in the context of what they look like here in west Michigan, maybe a poke weed or a thistle.  The weed being referred to here though is probably darnel, or ζιζάνιον (zizanion), if you can read Greek (I cannot).

Darnel is a plant that looks very similar to wheat, but is poisonous.  First, this tells me that it's not so easy to separate the good from the bad, and it makes the world a very real place.  Not ideal.  That shouldn't be news to anyone.

My sentence from God came as a clarification to the problem of evil in the world.  It is very easy to look at the desolation and hurt and pain in the world, and ask, "how could there be a God who would let this happen?  Does s/he even care?"  That's a very reasonable question to ask.  I'm not going to give you a proof for why God exists or doesn't, that can't be done, and it frustrates me to no end.  What I will do is tell you something about God, if you believe her/him to exist.  God is honest.

If you believe God exists, then occasionally you will bump into something in the Bible that seems morally questionable if God is God.  If God is love, mercy and kind.  I'm going to ask that you suspend your human perspective on morality, because frankly, you don't have an eternal perspective, or even a 7th dimensional perspective (you can bet I wish for even a 5th dimensional perspective every day).  Don't suspend your idea of morality forever though, you can have it back later, you will need it to remain human.

In verses 28 and 30, God says to me, "I know there is evil, and I know you see it.  I see it too.  But this is my plan, despite how it may not make sense and hurt from your perspective."  He says: "An enemy has done this."  "Let both grow together until the harvest."

In this instance, in this parable, in this story, I hear God saying to me: "I know.  I know.  This is the decision I have made from my perspective, it might not make sense from yours.  You will have to fight to grow in the midst of a weed filled world.  You will struggle to receive the sunlight you need.  You will compete for water with the weeds, but in the end, I know the wheat and I know the darnel.  I'm going to gather you into my barn."

I hear an acknowledgment from God that the world is a confusing place, but that he's letting us grow this way for now:

‘An enemy has done this...in gathering the weeds you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.'

 I don't understand why s/he's doing it this way, but God isn't hiding it either.  S/he's honest with us about it.

I am a cynical Christian

I am cynical.  I am occasionally bitter.  Despite this, I love people, really love them, even if I hurt deeply and don't do it as well as I'd like.  I fight intellectual elitism in myself, and idealism in churches.  Let me unpack that.

Isn't cynicism bad?  Doesn't it hurt and cause loss of intimacy and trust?

Yes, it can be and it does.  It can be borne of doubt when that doubt is ignored and swept under the rug, or worse, ridiculed.  A doubt that is raised and scorned, or decried as weak faith can bear a crop of cynicism.

Cynicism can be cultivated over an extended period of time if doubts are not shared, or if the individual is not comfortable raising them among their friends or family.  Ignoring the existence of doubts, instead of cultivating and addressing, or even encouraging them can be caustic, especially over time.

Intellectual elitism
Cynicism and intellectual elitism, in particular, can be a response to the anti-intellectualism that is plaguing churches today.  It is part of the religion vs science "debate" and makes a mockery of both, in its misunderstandings of both.  Elitism however, is a poor weapon to fight anti-intellectualism, as it alienates and divides further.

Empathy, dialogue and gentle explication are a far better tool to reach those who feel threatened by "science".  Much of my cynicism and need to be elitist has been curbed by having conversations and dialogue with other Christians about what science is and what it means to me.  The friendship of a Christian in science can often dispel misunderstandings and the belief that the two callings are mutually exclusive.

Of course, dialogue means entering into conversation without expectation of a changed mind/heart/attitude from the other person.  Useful dialogue is often just that--an exchange of ideas that often leads to no change, other than a deeper trust or respect.

Idealism
Idealism is another point of contention that cynics have with the church.  It can be thought of in this way:

“God will never give you more than you can handle.” Some Christians dispense this phrase with such regularity that one would think it comes from Scripture (I think it is actually a distortion of Paul’s words on temptation in 1 Cor. 10:13). The opposite, however, seems to be more biblically true—God at times gives us way more than we can handle in order to drive us into a deeper dependence on him (“. . . we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. . . . But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead”—2 Cor. 1:8-9).

Idealism oozes out of our pulpits in the form of empty platitudes and trite sentimentality. It seeps out of well-meaning lips in hospital rooms and funeral parlors as we stretch for something cheery to say in the face of sickness and death. A great deal of sermon material can only work in safe and sanitized suburbs.

--the Gospel Coalition

It is no wonder that it's hip to be cynical as a pushback to idealism.  Anyone who is honest can see that we don't live in an ideal world.  How often do we pretend that our churches aren't filled with hurting confused people?  We can't hide here either.  Cynicism acknowledges this, but to be useful, it needs to move past it into hope.  Unfortunately, hope is hard.  Hope is hard when there are innocents being killed and raped.  Hope is hard when politics seem like just another vehicle for powerful people to make farcical decisions to advance their careers and names.  Hope is hard.

What now?
Despite the difficulty of hope, I'd rather trade my cynicism for hopeful realism, and embracing the reality of a world and a church that are not ideal.  Because when you're cynical, it's hard to care about solutions.

In case you wonder how dark a journey can be that results in hopeful realism, let me share something that I wrote recently to a friend:

My worry in penning this though is that it is satisfying some dark, human desire to seem realest-of-the-real to those that would read it, and somehow think better of me. For truly, that is what i desperately want. Still and always. This is why grace is difficult and why i distrust myself ever to receive it, because in my heart i know (think) that i don't need it. And I'm terrified that i will always feel this way. Calvinism and evangelicalism and the words of men/friends have no balm for this. I must admit it, i hate (have?) faith. i do not understand it and i do not trust it. i am suspicious of it. Its supposed simplicity and guilelessness seem nearly nefarious. What kind of Christian dares to say or think that? i'm no longer sure. God, this is hard. How does this happen?
...

My conception of faith stems from Hebrews: "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."  This is problematic, because I find it difficult to be confident in something I'm hoping for.  I guess that's the nature of faith: it must be blind.  I don't know if it's faith that I hate, or if it's the fact that so few Christians have a problem with it.  That, to be a good Christian, you must just be happy about faith, and the deeper your confidence in it the better...it just strikes me as false when I observe blind, unquestioned faith.  I guess it feels like a cop out: "oh, I have faith, therefore I don't have to think about what that means... "Basically what you [my friend] said:

"When people talk about what God is teaching them through doubt, I have never understood that.  Mostly, I wonder how full the glass has to be to tip the scales and "count" as faith."

Yeah! WTF?  I think my problem is excessive cynicism and distrust...that kind of hurts the faith idea too.

 It was a low point for me, but I don't think it's faith that I hate.  Faith is still tough for me, and I hope that at some point it's tough for everyone, because that means you care about getting it right, or at least better.  I still think the answer is Jesus.  It may be a buzzword, but hopeful realism is transforming my cynicism.  Just being able to say that helps.

Jim Wallis says it this way:

Faith enables us to act in hope, despite how things look, and that's what can help make change finally occur and change how things look.

Reading
Is Christian Cynicism a Spiritual Sickness?
Putting Off Cynicism
The Post-Cynical Christian
7 Ways to Stop Being Cynical About Church
Post-Cynical Christianity
On Christian Cynicism
Embracing ‘Hopeful Realism’: Why Cynicism Is a Dead End and Idealism a Farce