EngineeredTheology

To start, I respect the position of the book (and I assumed from the book’s title I would be nodding my head in agreement through most of it). Many of us are reviewing the results of the last 40 years of Christianity and wondering where we have all gone wrong. For those who are just starting walking down this road of thought it is normal to want to find who was responsible and place blame for any failure (I certainly have had these sentiments). Mr. Smith seems to take a very hard approach against many of the religious figureheads of our time (Billy Graham, Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, etc) – and I can suspect it is because the fires of frustration are understandably burning high. While it is something I understand, cutting down those men who have devoted their entire lives to doing exactly what they felt God calling them to do is not the correct way forward.

Unfortunately from a literary stance, I found little direction in the book. I cannot come away with what the point the author wanted me to walk away with, aside from the fact that he is frustrated with the current state of the church. Unfortunately I think the wonderfully benign title of A Lover’s Quarrel with the Evangelical Church would unfortunately be better called A Rant against the Evangelical Church.

It is obvious that the Christian machine has pulled much of the faith away from doing what is “right” towards doing what is popular or profitable. Unfortunately, it looks very hypocritical to be throwing shame on the income of Christian non-profit organisation from a for-profit book published by the huge International Bible Society (the organisation that holds the copyright for the NIV version of the bible).

From a logic standpoint, I found most of the arguments unconvincing (even while ultimately agreeing with the conclusions). I agree that historical Christianity is important as our foundation, but the book does not deal with exactly why this should be important. I agree that large churches often miss out on developing their members, but without strong argument I would not automatically conclude that the consolidation of churches (reduction in small and growth of the large) would necessarily be problematic. In the discussion between the medium and the message, the fact that medium plays a part in the message is stated – but never really discussed. The chapter concludes that we are “not faithfully preaching it (the word of god)”, which is in turn a problem with our message (or lack of message), not the medium.

Much of the book is devoted to specific personalities recognisable in Christianity. I think we have learned that a commitment at a rally does not always mean something. It is a painful lesson to learn. To hold Billy Graham and Bill Hybels accountable for all the ills with the church is misguided at best. I have listened to both Billy Graham and Bill Hybels. I don’t have to always agree with the methods to conclude that both men were devoted to doing what they felt called to do. We should all be so excited when thousands would gather to hear us speak of God (I seem to remember that Jesus and the disciples use this method more than once).

I found it downright unacceptable to deem Rick Warren as a liar (in the heading Lies, More Lies, and Statistics) because Mr. Smith read an article in World Magazine and he could not reconcile the church numbers (148). Again, I see much in megachurches that should be done much differently, but making very unfounded accusations is not the way we as the church should try to bring about change.

In short, I absolutely love the title of the book but found few pages inside it that didn’t make me sigh with disappointment.

The Evangelical Myth
The evangelical church focuses on counting numbers of conversions. With conversions at an all time high, it appears that the number of evangelical Christians have declined significantly in the century. Christians have begun to consolidate into larger churches, resulting in significantly less churches per 10,000 people. With consolidation comes the ability to flex both political and monetary power. Mr. Smith recounts the recent moral failures of politicians endorsed by the values voter along with directions they have taken that may not have been in-line with normal Christian values. Finally, he touches on the business machine that has evolved through Christian rallys (Promise Keepers, Women of Faith, etc), and the millions of dollars generated for these corporations. This idea brought up again in The Christian Industrial Complex focusing on the Christian music industry.

many of the worse elements of the modern world – materialism, empire building ad the expense of community building, and the accumulation of power and money – have become some of the most recognisable attributes of American evangelism (pg 40)

The New Provincialism
The church has moved away from its historical roots and is all too quick to move away from historical teachings. One example is the idea of pre-millennialism. The church has historically believed in an amillennial eschatology, but beginning with books like The Late Great Planet Earth and the Left Behind series, a pre-millennial eschatology has become the cornerstone of evangelical beliefs – not through biblical study and historical teachings, but through the Christian media machine. The church service has moved away from the historical community centered area focused on a single pulpit or the cross, to targeting a very narrow demographic and focusing on the overhead projector.

The Triumph of Sentimentality
Church style was transformed by the advent of Willow Creek Church and the seeker style of service. This style of church is fundamentally questionable because

The very idea of a seeker is, according to Horton, theologically suspect. “Scripture teaches that no one seeks after God” (pg 91)

Joel Osteen takes this seeker model and primarily focuses on God’s goodness instead of man’s sinfulness, thereby presenting a more palatable gospel. Both these movements are a break from the historical teachings of the church.

Body Count Evangelism
This chapter begins with documenting the difference in fund resources between the largest parachurch organisations and the average congregation, associating the rise of the parachurch and the income tax deduction. The topic quickly jumps to a brief discussion of Calvinism and Arminianism, then to attributing the rise of Mormonism to the American awakening of the early 1800s. Finally the chapter ends discussing Saddleback church and accusing Rick Warren of fabricating church attendance numbers.

The Great Stereopticon
A brief history of the rise of media in America. Christianity (from the radio to TV – from the printing press to the projector) has quickly embraced technology. The dangers of forgetting the medium used when conveying a message are reviewed, and a warning call to remember that context effects the message as well.

Christianity’s Next Small Thing
In contrast to megachurch growth, the growth strategy of The Believer’s Church is discussed. This method focuses on keeping church size small and planting new churches for growth. The book ends discussing the benefits of such a method (accountability, multiplicity, self sacrifice, and biblical basis).

Review of Nike Free 5.0

I was in need of some new shoes, and the Nike Free series had really caught my eye. I have been in favor of more natural running styles (closer and closer to barefoot running). There are always studies that will prove any idea you have, so if an idea sounds plausible the only thing to do is try it out. Granted, a sample size of one does not imply a trend, but that one sample (me) is all I’m really concerned about.

I have seen major changes in the comfort of running and overall speed due to a shift from a heal-toe to midfoot running style. Another claim of barefoot running is that the stiffer sole of running shoes prevent the foot muscles from strengthening properly, and moving to a more flexible (or no) sole will increase foot strength and can solve pronation problems. The major plus of the Nike Free shoes have extremely flexible soles (there are cuts in the sole that allow it to flex unlike normal running shoes.

When I first pulled the shoes out of the box I noticed
1. Good lord these are the ugliest shoes I’ve ever seen – I could only get them in “blinding green” seen in the picture above.
2. They are extremely light (I thought the box was empty)
3. They don’t have a spot for a Nike+ sensor

The Nike+ sensor is a little accelerometer that can attach to a shoe. There is a mating reciever for your iPod, and it can roughly calculate your speed and distance run (for me it is usually +/- 2% in accuracy). All new Nike running shoes support this, apparently for this one.

I’ve logged three runs with the new shoes. I’ve heard that if you don’t do a lot of barefoot walking (I have a genetic aversion to shoes) you feet will be sore until they build up some strength. Because of this my first run was a sprint interval of about 3 km to take it somewhat easy. The second run was 8k, and I ran a 10k for the third (then got the flu and haven’t run in a few days).

From those three runs I’ve seen
1. I can’t wear socks with the shoes, they are too form fitting.
2. They really are light. I’m surprised a few ounces makes a difference
3. I feel a lot lighter on my feet
4. I have a much smoother gate (I had some slight pronation issues)

The most dramatic thing is I am running significantly faster (shaving about 20 seconds off my mile to average a 7:30 mile on the 10k). I don’t know how much of this is psychological and how much is physical (I suspect the psychological is having some effect) – but the data shows I’m running significantly faster.

We’ll see how I feel after a month or two, but right now I’m impressed.

Like most people, I have pains when I run. Knee pain, shin splints, hip pain, etc. I don’t really mind running, but I wonder if it really is supposed to be so painful. Weren’t we meant to run?

It is obvious we were born with the ability to run, but I wonder if our current shoe technology is forcing us to run in ways that are not biomechanically correct.

If you were to take a look at any modern running shoe, you would see a very thick heal and much less at the toe. The thought when this design was created was that this would enable the runner to always be running “downhill”. This thick padding started allowing heaver and heavier heal strikes when running. What this means is that you can run impacting the heal first, then rolling back to the toes. This is extremely uncomfortable way to run if you don’t have any shoes on. As a matter of comparison, if you take a quick run around the room barefoot, you’ll find you can’t reasonably land heal first every time.

This heavy heal strike, even with the significant shoe padding is extremely tough on the joints. When a runner reaches forward with their front foot and lands, there are impact forces that are created. With the quick vector diagram above, there is a force pointed down (to counteract gravity) and a resultant force pointed in the opposite direction of motion (i.e. a reaching heal strike will slow down your forward momentum).

When the force is followed up through the leg, it goes directly to the knee joint (as often the leg is straight). There is no dampening available, so the knee joint (specifically the cartilage) will see all the impact force. This then flows up into the hip joint. It is not a dramatic leap to hypothesise that this could create knee pain.

The main next question is, is there a different way to run? When I watch my kids run, the do not know to land with their heal first. They run (both barefoot and with shoes) on their “toes” – on the ball of their foot to the midfoot. This is the same way you will find yourself forced to run if you do the little experiment running barefoot around the room.

Running on the midfoot (think of landing on the back part of the balls of your feet – the heal can still touch, but it is not taking the impact forces) can be a natural way to run, but may have been un-learned by years of wearing “comfy” shoes. You will naturally find youself no longer reaching your front leg in front of you and landing with your foot directly under your body (if not even a little behind).

This has two main effects.
1. There is no longer a force opposing your momentum (it should take less energy to keep moving forward)
2. The knee will be bent

While the first effect is nice, it is the second that can help with joint pain. First, landing on the balls of your feet, there are dampening forces (think shock absorbers). When landing on the midfoot, the impact force goes not through your tibia, but from the achillies tendon to the calf muscle. This then works its way up to the quads and hamstring muscles. Since muscles are meant to expand and contract, they are much more able to handle these types of forces than the cartilage in joints. The hip and knee joints are active participants, but will not be required to take direct compressive forces.

This is the way I have begun to run. Of course, even this is not perfect. I have replaced knee pain for significant muscle and tendon pain. On the onset, the pain was far more severe. I suspect this is due to significantly higher forces being required of muscles that have never been required to handle them. After a month they are all but gone away and I have absolutely no hip or ankle pain and significantly less knee pain than before.

The interesting thing is that I have been able to run much farther and much faster than ever before.

I’ve been working through stacks of books (the current ones having me bogged down for some time). I’m wondering what is the right balance between reading the thoughts of others vs. spending time to discover things for myself. On the level of the bible, what is the correct ratio of studying the base narrative vs. all the meta-narratives (or even meta-meta-narratives). The problem is that I can read a science or philosophy book and somewhat tune out (like watching a movie). I am a passive participant in learning. Actually pondering the same thoughts on my own involves firing all the neurons (and having the time to do so) – it’s really tiring work.

Certainly there is no dichotomy of propriety between the two, but a balance of both to both steer you farther and also keep on course. I think my balance is far too heavily weighted by lethargy.