#ContactForm1 { display: none ! important; }


A new collaborative community of faith is starting up in Cleveland that will combine the ideas of organic church and social networking/web 2.0 functions. Phyllis and I have been talking and praying about this for years and we feel the context is finally right. For those of you who know us, you know that this will not be like any church you've ever heard of...some folks may even have a difficult time calling it church. That's OK. I prefer the phrase "collaborative community of faith," because that's more in line with New Testament theology. The word "church" just doesn't carry the same connotations that it did 2,000 years ago.

Anyway, a web portal is in the works. For now, keep checking back here for info. This will be an intergenerational, family-centric model.

As a primer, consider reading George Barna's Revolution in addition to the Neil Cole book listed above.


Fluevog Rocks

When it comes to design, nobody does it better than Fluevog.

What's that? You've never heard of Fluevog? Well, well. Let me be the first to introduce you.

It was 1989. I was living in Yakima Washington with my good friend James Allen and he and I made a day trip to Seattle. The city is awesome. I fell in love: the Space Needle, Pike Place Market, the "melting pot" of cultures...it was truly an experience. And then James, who shares my inordinate love for cool clothes and shoes, took me to Fluevogs. It blew my mind. In this store were the wildest shoes I had ever seen in my life. I've been a fan since that day. Right now I'm drooling over a few pair of shoes available on the Fluevog web site. But it gets better.

Fluevog has this thing called Open Source Footwear (see the image below).

This is an fantastic idea. Since I am a huge fan of Fluevog and a designer, I decided to give it a go. That's right, I designed a shoe for Fluevog. If it gets enough votes, they'll make the shoe!

So, if you get a chance, go to the OpenSource section of fluevog.com and vote on my design.


I Agree with Barack Obama

Did you see this story out of the Baptist Press:
Have you read the part of the Sermon on the Mount about homosexuality? If that doesn’t ring a bell, don’t worry. A lot of people are wondering exactly what presidential hopeful Barack Obama meant when he cited Jesus’ famous sermon as justification for his endorsement of homosexual civil unions. “I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other,” Obama said. “I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.” Russell D. Moore, dean of the school of theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, disagrees with Obama’s interpretation, yet sees hope in the fact that he cited Scripture. “Conservative evangelicals and other social conservatives should not see Sen. Obama’s statements here as necessarily bad news. He is acknowledging that his theological presuppositions affect the way he views governmental justice issues. We should be willing to engage that conversation, even when (as will often be the case) we have something very different to say.” [Baptist Press, 3/3/08, emphasis added]
Now, obviously, Obama should read his Bible a little more often, 'cuz he's a bit up-mixed. However, I do agree with his basic position. If our government wants to grant civil unions to homosexuals, I say let 'em. Actually, it seems about right for the US government to do such a thing. Fits with the character. And it doesn't hurt me in any way...legally, socially or theologically. But marriage is a different case altogether.

First of all, the US government did not create marriage, God did, and it happened in Genesis. Second, marriage was not only instituted by God, but it was also clearly defined by God: It is intended to be between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Anytime this definition has been co-opted the results have been less than admirable. Just ask Solomon.

So, despite the seemingly impossible odds, I actually agree with Barack Obama...at least on this one account. Who'd a thunk it?