Confessions of a Dallas Sports Fan

The early part of my life I did not live in a city with a professional sport (apart from a minor league team).   I was only familiar with the college Arkansas Razorbacks whenever the football and basketball team played in a bowl game or NCAA tournament.  I didn’t really know what I was rooting for other than the name.  I could also draw the Razorback logo quite well.  But I just wasn’t a fan.

When I moved to Dallas at 11 years old, I moved to a city with the Big Three professional sports: baseball, football, basketball.  But I didn’t become a fan of either instantly.  It slowly happened. 

My first love was baseball and the Texas Rangers.  The reason why I even developed interest was because in 7th grade P.E., a friend was telling me how great it was that the Rangers got Nolan Ryan.  I asked, “Who’s Nolan Ryan?”  What followed was my friend’s shock that I had no idea who Nolan Ryan was, who at that time (and still is) the greatest strikeout pitcher the game had ever seen.  I had to know who this Nolan Ryan was, so I started watching games.  Soon I fell in love.  I can still name you the starting fielders that year: Catcher: Sundberg, 1st: Palmeiro, 2nd: Franco, SS: Kunkel, 3rd: Buechelle, RF: Sierra, CF: Espy, LF: Incaviglia. The GM was Tom Grieve, and the manager was the great Bobby Valentine. 

I digress.

Then one day I was at a friend’s house for his birthday party on New Year’s day.  On TV was the Cotton Bowl.  I had a particular interest in this game because the Razorbacks were playing.  The Razorbacks lost.  But all I remember thinking was that the opposing team’s quarterback was pretty good.  The opposing team: UCLA.  The quarterback: Troy Aikman.

That year,  Jerry Jones, an oilman from my former town of Little Rock, bought the Dallas Cowboys.  He made news not after he bought the team, but after he fired Tom Landry.  But that didn’t concern me much.  What concerned me was that someone from Little Rock owned the team.  Then during the draft, their first pick was none other than Troy Aikman, the guy who beat the Razorbacks earlier that year.  I then became very interested and watched every game that season.  That season they went 1-15.  But I stuck with it, learned the game, learned the team, and went through the myriad of spares that played.  Does anyone even remember Paul Palmer?

But then came the Mavericks.  That took years for me to be a fan.  I remember coaches like Adubato and Buckner, who would be lucky to win 20 games in a season.  Buckner only won 13.  But I just had no interest in the NBA, apart from the Finals, and even less interest in the Mavericks.  Even when the Mavs had the famous “Three J’s,” I still had no interest to watch.  Until Jim Cleamons.  He was Phil Jackson’s assistant hired on to be the head coach of the Mavs.  The Mavs were also under new ownership with Perot Junior.  This made news.  This gave me some interest.  I started watching the Mavericks.  Soon the Three J’s were being dealt.  After dealing the best of the three, Jason Kidd, Don Nelson came on as GM.  He then made the big trade with the Nets that brought Shawn Bradley, Robert Pack and other spares  to the Mavs.  Does anyone even remember Pack?   That season was miserable.  But I stuck with it.  I became a fan.  The next year, Cleamons was eventually fired and Nelson made himself coach.  The following seasons were painful, as we had these young potential stars in Nash, Nowitzki and Finley, this useless center that Nelson adored, Bradley, and “the best running big man in the NBA”, Chris Anstey.  It was frustrating to watch, but as a fan, I stuck with it. 

Having gone through the painful seasons as a fan makes those years of success that much sweeter.  The Cowboys’ 3 of 4, the Rangers' first division title in 1999 and winning the AL Pennant last year, and the Mavs becoming a consistent 50-win playoff team and its 2006 conference title year.   But another effect of having gone through those painful years is the pessimism of success.  With the exception of the Cowboys  of the early 90s, which was clearly (in my opinion) the best built NFL team ever, I was pretty much pessimistic every time any Dallas team made the playoffs.  I knew the Yankees would beat the Rangers.  I knew the Rangers didn’t have a chance in the World Series.  I knew that the Cowboys wouldn’t do damage in the playoffs as the Jimmy-built team was gradually leaving or retiring.  It’s not that I predicted these things, or that I desired these things, but that in my heart, I got so used to losing that I was preparing myself for the inevitable: Dallas will lose.

2006 was the year I was teased.  The Mavs made it to the finals for the first time in its history.  I wasn’t too familiar with the Heat, but I wasn’t too optimistic simply because of Shaq and Wade.  If you look at that lineup Dallas had, outside of Dirk, they had no one.  It was a miracle they even made it that far.  But when they were up 2-0, based on the way in which they won those two, I became convinced: Dallas can win this.  Then came the collapse.  Some analysts say it was the worst collapse in NBA Finals history.  As everyone knows, the Mavs ended up losing that painful series against the Heat. 

I’m not going to let myself be teased by the Mavs again.  It’s a Dallas team, after all. 

Now I don’t want a cookie for being a Mavs fan through those 20-win seasons (although I’ll take a cookie just because it’s a cookie).  But for other fans that are like myself, having experienced those painful moments for much longer, even after success like the great Mavs team that went the distance with the Lakers in the 1988 conference finals and lost (which I didn’t experience), those who  stuck with them through those dreadful years, for us, this 2011 NBA Finals may have mixed emotions. 

Because I’ve been out of the country, I can’t really keep up with the Mavericks apart from reading about them.  But I know enough to say that this is indeed the best team the Mavericks have ever assembled in my time.  Dirk is also playing in a way he’s never played before.  Still, however, knowing the Heat will be the opponent, and having tasted defeat and failure many times as a Mavs fan, I do not think they can win this.

That isn’t a prediction.  There is no analysis being done.  That is simply me being pessimistic.  Or maybe it’s me being defensive.  I don’t want to set myself up for heartbreak again, so I won’t let myself believe there’s a chance.

Dirk is making it very hard for me not to believe.  But I will not set myself up for heartbreak again.

I say all this ramble just to make one point: for any Dallas fan being called a “hater” just because they don’t think the Mavs can win, it’s not because they’re a hater.  Rather, it’s because they are probably even more a fan than the majority of recent fans.  As a fan, they’ve carried a lot of baggage with them.  They want the Mavs to win.  I want the Mavs to win.  But our experiences tell us that our hope isn’t always the result.

To all those Mavs fans who have stuck with it through the 80s and 90s, I salute you.  This Finals isn’t just about redemption for 2006, but redemption for the entire history of the franchise.   I hope the Nowitzki-led Mavericks will make all those years of suffering finally pay off.

But don’t count on it….

The Gospel and Aliens: Reflections on District 9

This may contain spoilers for those who have not seen the movie District 9 and wish to see it. 

Many years ago I was leading a small group at a youth retreat.  One youth asked me, in all seriousness, with the most sincere curiosity, “Did God create the aliens?”  I said yes.  If there are aliens, God created them.

Years later, I shared this question with a professor at Westminster.  I then asked him what would be the Christian reaction to the existence aliens?  Because it seems like to many in Christian circles that the presence of aliens would somehow ruin their theology, and they would say aliens are actually manifestations of Satan.  But my professor responded differently: “I would share the Gospel with [the aliens].”  Initially I was amused by the answer.  I soon realized the seriousness of his reply.  

That small conversation came to mind when watching District 9.

District 9 has got to be one of the best movies I have seen in years.  It’s a movie that I would distinguish as a “film.”  It’s not just a movie to entertain, but one with such a depth to penetrate one’s conscience and raise questions about one’s self and society.  It’s not every day you see a violent, gory Sci-Fi movie that can have such an effect.  I used to think Avatar had that kind of quality, but District 9 takes it to a whole new level.

Movies such as this, I believe, have a Gospel message in it.  Though it may be imperfect, as there is no perfect analogy to what Christ did and does, it still shows various dimensions of that message.  For District 9, I felt it had to have had a very significant message within it for it to have the kind of effect it had on me.  But without having watched it a second time, going solely on my initial reaction and memory, I could not figure it out.

The main alien did have some Christ-likeness to him.  He was far more intelligent than the others, but he lived among them and cared for them.  He wanted to save them and bring them home.  But the comparison was not strong enough for me.  There had to be something more.

The human reaction to the aliens initially did show glimpses of the Gospel message in helping the poor, feeding the hungry, etc.  The aliens were discovered malnourished and on the verge of death.  The humans did the humane thing to those that were not human.  But as the story goes, that was a short term response.  It soon turned into oppression, segregation, etc.

The main character has something of an incarnational analogy to him.  He slowly became more and more like the aliens, and eventually experienced what they experience.  He walked like them, talked like them, ate like them, and was persecuted like them.  But to what redeemable end was that?  It didn’t have the connection I hoped to see.

I began to realize this movie’s Gospel message is not in the film itself.  Rather, it was in my reaction to the movie. 

The aliens, when introduced in the beginning, were disgusting looking creatures.  They were called “prawns” due to their similarities to the prawn.  They were difficult to look at.  However, what ends up happening toward the end of the movie is that you begin to not notice their appearance, you begin to empathize with their suffering, you hate the evil that has been put upon them, and you want them to be saved.  Such a transformation in one’s outlook is what the Gospel does.

Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus comes to mind.  The rich man saw Lazarus all the time.  He even knew his name.  He saw him by the gate.  The gate was transparent in the sense that you could see through it, but it kept the people outside.  District 9 was a slum.  People knew who were inside, they knew what was going on, but they avoided them.  The slum had a gate that kept the aliens from leaving. The Gospel would have transformed the rich man to help Lazarus.  The rich man would have been a neighbor, like the Good Samaritan, to Lazarus.  But he didn’t.  In the same way, people did not respond to the atrocities going on in District 9.

It’s appropriate that this movie takes place in Johannesburg.  A place where racism was well known and the experience of apartheid is in their not-so-distant past.  What happened to the black man in South Africa was now happening to the alien.  The derogatory words that have been made for human ethnic groups, were now made against these aliens.   Somehow this movie makes a conversion happen to the viewer (at least to me) that they’d want a response against these atrocities against the aliens.

The humans in the movie were never really converted.  If anything, only the main character who gradually lost his humanity (physically) was converted to some extent.  The viewer, however, could very well have been converted.

That is the Gospel message in this movie.  It is the message that speaks to our conscience that this is not right, that we should fight for the oppressed and free them.  It is a message that has us love our neighbor.   Love others as God’s creation, no matter how hideous they may be on the outside.  It is a message that makes the feelings of others very real, and we love them as we ourselves want to be loved. 

Certainly, when talking about the Gospel, the issue of Sin and Grace must be discussed.  But like I said before, no movie can make a perfect analogy to the work of Christ.  Yet, the movie still deals with the issue of sin.  The Gospel does not only deal with the sins of self, but the sins of society.  The latter is what is dealt with here.

So, what should we do if we encounter aliens?  Share the Gospel with them.

To Elijah

This is a homily I wrote for chapel service tomorrow morning.  The text I was assigned: Luke 8:49-56.  The theme: "Jesus the Healer."

Luke 8:49-56   ⁴⁹ While he was still speaking, someone came from the leader's house to say, "Your daughter is dead; do not trouble the teacher any longer."  ⁵⁰ When Jesus heard this, he replied, "Do not fear. Only believe, and she will be saved."  ⁵¹ When he came to the house, he did not allow anyone to enter with him, except Peter, John, and James, and the child's father and mother.  ⁵² They were all weeping and wailing for her; but he said, "Do not weep; for she is not dead but sleeping."  ⁵³ And they laughed at him, knowing that she was dead.  ⁵⁴ But he took her by the hand and called out, "Child, get up!"  ⁵⁵ Her spirit returned, and she got up at once. Then he directed them to give her something to eat.  ⁵⁶ Her parents were astounded; but he ordered them to tell no one what had happened.

 _______________________________________________

On January 27, 2007, my nephew was born.  My brother’s firstborn.  Him and his wife named him Elijah.  On January 28, 2007, the very next day, Elijah died.  Elijah had undergone serious complications in his development in the womb and they had to perform an emergency C-section to take him out and treat him directly.  After many hours of doctors finding solutions to problem after problem, eventually the problems outnumbered the solutions.  Less than 24 hours after his birth, we were all standing there knowing that Elijah was about to die.  They took him off life-support and brought him to my brother and his wife.  They held him for the first time as his heart was beating his last.  Their pastors were with them.  They were asked to pray for Elijah that he may survive.  After what seemed like an eternity of pleading to God in Christ that he may allow Elijah to live, Elijah died.  Then after a few minutes, my sister-in-law asked the pastors again to pray.  She believed that he could be brought back to life.  I believed the same.  Everyone prayed for him, silently and loudly.  But after a certain time, my brother told his wife that it’s time to let him go.  

 

It’s experiences like that which make passages like this difficult for me.  When we talk about Jesus’ healing as a result of someone’s faith, we ask why not now?  The bible does not record a single incident of Jesus not healing  when asked in faith.  He even raised people from the dead, as we have read.  Is there something wrong with our faith?  Then I think maybe not, but there might be something wrong with how we understand Christ’s healing in his earthly ministry.

The miracles of Jesus, I believe, point us to his final work on the cross. In addition to that, Jesus’ second coming in the eschaton will also point backward to his work on the cross.  It is at the cross where death was conquered.  It is through his suffering that health was given.  It was through his resurrection that we also may be resurrected.   Likewise, when Jairus’s daughter’s life ended due to her illness, Jesus showed that through him, resurrection and healing may happen.

We as Christians have experienced this in Christ.  We have been healed in Christ, but it is fully realized when Christ returns and establishes his Kingdom.  Some times that healing can come forth into the present as Christ’s kingdom is breaking into our present reality.  But healing may not always happen in the now.

Jesus did heal everyone who believed, from the least to the greatest in faith, but it was to point us to the cross that establishes his Kingdom.  Jesus is our healer.  He healed then, he heals now, and he heals with finality when he returns.  That is why we pray for our relatives and friends who are ill now.  Because God can surely heal them.  God will surely heal them.  The only thing is that we don’t know how God will bring about that fulfillment.  But we trust God for it.   If we have lost loved ones due to illness, we trust in God, through Christ,  that their healing and resurrection will come when Christ returns. 

 

That is a peace my brother and his wife have.  That one day they will see their son.  One day their two daughters will see their older brother.  The day when Christ will call out and say, “Elijah, get up.”

Living Out Our Baptism: Being Christ in this world

The following is an article I submitted to be published in my seminary's annual magazine.  It is using excerpts from a section of my thesis (a work in progress) and then built off of that.  The theme of the magazine this year is "Reformation: an invitation to sacramental living."   Please excuse the poor writing and grammatical confusions.  

 

Peter J. Leithart, in his book, The Baptized Body, discusses two ways of understanding the Body of Christ as the Church.  It is either the eschatological Church, that is, the glorified Church when Christ returns; or it is the historical Church, that is, the visible Church in human history.  The reason for the distinction is that the historical Church is still impure and going through a purification process.  It is only in the eschaton, when Christ returns, that the Church will be purified in its intended form.  The latter is the eschatological Church, the purified and glorified Church.  Understanding the distinction, scholars dispute as to whether or not the Body of Christ refers to the historical Church or the eschatological Church in Paul’s usage.  If it is the historical Church, that would mean this Church of so many imperfections would be part of Christ’s body.  That would be preposterous.  But Leithart rightly makes the case that the Body of Christ is the historical Church.  The Church today, even with all its flaws, is the Body of Christ.  His argument is that Paul is addressing a congregation with issues, with problems, with heretics in its fold.  Yet, Paul is still referring to them as part of the Body of Christ.  The Body of Christ is a historical reality. 

This Body of Christ is Christ, which Leithart also asserts.  Our bodies are not mere vessels for our souls to use as a medium to communicate and live with one another.  We are our bodies.  It is us.  Likewise, Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, is not God using a body, but that body is him.  When Jesus touched people, it was not a body that Jesus controlled, but it was Jesus himself.  In the same manner, when Paul says the Church is the Body of Christ, the Church is Christ.  We have joined him as part of his body.  We have been baptized into it. 

Therefore the Church, even with the imperfections of its baptized members, is Christ in this world.  In the way the Spirit descended on Christ at his baptism, the day of Pentecost brought the same for the Church.  The Church was and is empowered to be like Christ in his ministry.  The Church is the body both historically and eschatologically.  Historically, the Church is undergoing the process of purification, and awaiting the joining with Christ in the consummation.  The eschatological Church is the body that is unified with Christ, the bridegroom.  But in both forms of the Church, the Church is the Body of Christ, and therefore, the Church is Christ.

            It is here that we see how the Church lives a sacramental life in history.   In Christ’s earthly ministry, he healed people, helped the poor, he preached, and showed grace and compassion to those who were sinners in society (as those that judged them as sinners believed themselves to be righteous).  It was by grace that Christ came down to them and loved them as he did.  In the same manner, if the Church is Christ, the Church should do the same as Christ did.  The Church should thereby be a sacrament to the fallen world, communicating the grace, love and forgiveness of Christ. 

            Reformation in the Church is thus a call to a sacramental life.  It is not a reformation that is necessarily doctrinal.  It is a reformation that is part of the ongoing process of purification.  Paul reminded his churches of the baptism they received.  He had to remind them that in their baptism, they put on Christ.  They have put off the old man and put on the new, which is what we have in Christ.  This reminder to the churches of the first century is true to this day.  This reformation, therefore,  begins within ourselves as the Church.  We must understand what happened to us in our baptism.  We must ask ourselves if we are living in the old man, Adam, or in the new man, Christ who we put on in baptism.   We must then live out our baptism.  In other words, we must be Christ.  But being Christ is not something we must try to achieve.  It is something that is already given to us.  As Leithart said, the historical Church is Christ.  However, the Church is not being faithful to what it really is. 

            The outworking of the Church living out its baptism and being sacramental in this world cannot be described in detail.  The many ways that the Church needs to reform itself to be true to the Christ it has put on cannot be contained in this article. Volumes upon volumes could be written, and still it will not be complete.  But we have to start somewhere.  I would like to briefly suggest three ways the Church should live out its baptism.

            1.  The Church should be faithful in the proclamation of the Gospel.  I would summarize the Gospel as follows: Jesus Christ is Lord and he has come with saving authority.  In other words, Jesus Christ is Lord and he is Savior.  If he is Savior, then he has come to save someone from something.  In the Scriptures we understand that we are to be saved from sin, the consequences of sin, the death of sin, and be given life in Christ, purified and righteous.  His Lordship implies his authority over all things.  Jesus said to teach all that he had commanded.  Why?  Because he is Lord.  He saved us and placed us under his Lordship.  When we proclaim the Gospel, we are sharing this news of the saving work of Christ, and are inviting the hearers to come under his Lordship. 

            2.  The Church should reach out to sinners of society.  We are all sinners.  That is a fact the Bible is clear on.  But there are people who our societies deem as far from just “normal sinners.”  They  could be people with addictions, whether it be alcohol, drugs or even sexual.  It could be prostitutes, slum lords or gang leaders.  These people should be reached out to in the way Jesus reached out to the adulteress woman, the tax collector, and the thief on the cross.  Reach out in love in their situation.  That love could involve rebuke, but it would be done gracefully.  It is a reach that also includes the sharing of the Gospel.  It is a reach that works to transform not only the people, but the society as a whole with the Gospel message, exorcising the demons (sinful structures) of that society that propagate sinful lifestyles.  We are to touch them as Christ would, because we are Christ.

            3.  The Church should be an agent of healing.  One may not have a gift from God to heal, but the Church is equipped to bring healing (spiritual, physical, mental and emotional) to people in need.  Churches tend to focus on one or two while neglecting the rest.  I have noticed some churches that put so much emphasis on the physical, mental and emotional that they neglect the spiritual.  There is also the other extreme: their only emphasis is spiritual healing, while neglecting their other needs.  Jesus, in his earthly ministry, was more than a healer of physical ailments and diseases.  He was a counselor.  He encouraged.  He educated.  He brought life both physically and spiritually.  He empathized.  The result of the healing ministry of Jesus was the healed giving praise and glory to the Lord.  The healing ministry of the Church, likewise, must be focused on addressing all these needs; but the end result should be those that the Church ministers to should see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven.  If they glorify the church as the organization that brought healing, then the church has failed.  We are to be Christ to the world.

            Certainly more can be said about these three things, and even more areas can be brought up in regards to how the Church may live a sacramental life in its continuing reformation.  But my desire is not to give a blueprint of what the problems are and what the solutions should be.  Rather, it is to trigger thoughts about the church you go to, the denomination you belong to, the community of churches in your society, and the Church universal, and how is it reflective of the Christ we are to be.  Are we living out our baptism?  It is thus important that we as universal Church reform ourselves.  That reformation is a continuing work that begins internally by understanding the baptism we received; and the sacramental nature of the Church’s reformation begins externally as the Church lives out its baptism: being Christ in this world.

               

The Secret Ingredient

I met someone not too long ago who totally blew me away.  She was a doctor who preferred to be practicing as a missionary doctor in India amongst the poor.  I asked her why.  She really didn’t know.  It’s something she just always wanted to do.  

This fascinated me because in America, when you meet the rare person who’s willing to give up financially secure careers for mission, it’s due to some crisis experience – a “Damascus Road” type experience, or a long ordeal that transforms them.  But for her, it was none of that.  It was just what she wanted to do.

To add to how mind boggling (or mind bottling?) this is, she’s ethnically Malayalee.  If you are Malayalee, you know our culture in the 21^st century isn’t one that promotes giving up financial and social status for the poor.  But she wasn’t raised in Kerala.  She wasn’t raised in America.  She was raised in southern Africa.  Was it her parents’ upbringing?  I believe that is significant, but considering her parents prefer her not to do what she’s doing, I don’t know how significant it is directly.  So my only conclusion is that it was something in the social makeup of the culture she was raised in outside the home.

This mysterious “something” is not found in Kerala, nor is it found in America.  But I want to know what it is.

I met a college student the other day.  He’s doing his masters in social work in hopes to do fulltime ministry either in his denomination, or through a mission organization.  His older brother is a nurse who desires to be a nurse in the mission fields of India.  In this case, it wasn’t the culture outside the home that did this to these two brothers, but it was the culture inside the home.  Their father works for a mission organization, so as a family they’ve been involved.  It was in their family culture.

I don’t know if there’s a similar ingredient here in these two situations, apart from Christ whom both profess.  And I don’t want to belittle the faith factor in this.  I am wholly convinced that it is Christ’s working in these people’s lives for them to have these desires to do what God desires.  It’s just that it wasn’t some sudden revelation, but God working through their upbringing, inside or outside the home.

But is Christ the only thing that's missing?  I have a hard time saying it is.  Because I know many persons who know Christ as Lord and Savior, but they have no natural conviction to "die to self" in that manner.  They also belong to varying church traditions, from charismatic, to Pentecostal, Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, and eastern churches.  It could just be because they weren't meant for it.  Or it could mean their culture hasn't nurtured their faith in the way it was meant to be.   I believe it is more the latter than the former, because Jesus made no distinction on who helps the poor and suffering.  The apostles likewise made no distinction.

I just want to know what is that ingredient.  Because that ingredient is something families need in the Mar Thoma Church, and cultures need in Kerala and America.   Because the Church needs more people like them.

We're all messed up

I had read an article about this massacre in Congo with hundreds killed and kidnapped by the Lord’s Resistance Army, a group of rebels who follow a self-proclaimed prophet who wants the country to follow the Ten Commandments.

At first it may appear that they’re nuts, uncivilized, and uneducated.

But before I read this article, I read articles about Americans vandalizing property of, and threatening lives of Democratic leaders who voted for the recent health care reform bill.

Is there really a difference? 

Post-modernists say the darndest things

I am not a post-modernist.  While I claim no expertise on the subject, in my ignorance, I simply cannot accept a system that employs so much subjectivity by having the presupposition that there is no absolute truth.   That being said, I do not think it is all a waste.  Post-modernism has asked some very good questions.  But I don’t think a post-modernist should answer them.

One such question is how much have cultures and experiences shaped our theology?  Revelation does not come in a vacuum.  Revelation is received and interpreted by someone shaped by a culture and experience.  Theology is thus formed within a culture and based on experience. 

What is the consequence of this?  It means that the theology of Calvin and Luther were based on their respective cultures and experiences, just as the theology of Karl Barth.  That is why they differ, and use the same Scripture.  This introduces subjectivity. 

But I don’t think this opens the door to subjective truth.  I think this question actually opens the door for a need of a wider experience and understanding of more cultures.  It’s not subjective truth, but perhaps incomplete with some errors.

This is probably why, as my previous post discussed, we have such an American Christianity.  Because the American experience of prosperity, liberty, being a world superpower, being one of the richest nations in the world, being a place of refuge, a place to make money, etc., has shaped our theology.  Though not everyone is rich, it is in our culture that we try to become rich.  We need money to get by in this world, and the more you have, the more you can get by with comfort.  That is the way we grew up, that is our experience, that is our culture. 

Could this be why Christianity in America is distinct from Christianity in other nations?  I believe it is.  Our culture and experience has shaped our theology.

Perhaps we as Christians should understand this question and ask it to ourselves and our own understanding of the faith we as a Church profess.  Should we think beyond the American experience and culture?  I say we must.

That being said, I do believe there is that one kernel of truth that transcends culture and experience.  It is the bare truth that is interpreted through our culture and experience.  This kernel becomes clearer as we learn through other people’s experiences and cultures.  I personally believe that truth is that we are all sinners in need of a savior, Jesus Christ.  That one truth is true in every culture that I can think of.  But we understand the extent that sin has messed us up, and the comprehensiveness of Jesus’ redeeming work through our culture and experience.  I would suggest Calvin had a limited view.  Barth had a limited view.  John Piper has a limited view.  It doesn’t mean they are wrong, but it means that it is imperfect as it is limited to their culture and experience.  And they could be wrong as well.

I do not deny absolute truth, but I don’t think anyone has completely understood it.  That doesn't give us the freedom to believe whatever it is we want, but it should instill in us a need for diligence in understanding this truth that has been passed down through the tradition of the Church the past 2000 years, as it has been reinterpreted time and time again through new cultures and experiences.

We need to get out more.