It sounds a bit odd to describe my top talent as a talent, but according to the strengths finder, my dominant talent is connectedness. So, what does that mean? Basically it means that I'm a systems theory kind of guy who doesn't see the individual parts, but rather how all of the parts work together.

There are a few places where this has come in handy for ministry. One is systematic theology, which, in turn, really help in the writing of the elemental life which is, essentially, a basic, life application, systematic.

It's also been quite helpful in hermeneutics because, when I read a passage of Scripture, I can't help but think of it in light of the entire Biblical story. Of course, the primary place I use the interpretation of Scripture is preaching and the 27-Hour Service on the fshbwl.

For me, the biggest challenges with having this talent comes when talking with people who don't have any sense of the butterfly effect. People who see commonalities amongst various cultures, things like religion, marriage, and laws, not as a sign of some distant common story, but as nothing more than coincidentally matching cultural constructs. The same could be said for people who have no sense of responsibility towards others and or feel a overarching human imperative to love our neighbors.

Since this is so foundational in the way I see and understand the world, it's the place I naturally start from when talking about faith. At the same time, when people don't see things this way, it can be a blast to help connect the dots. In many ways, this is what I've been doing in ongoing conversations with people in downtown Denver.

So, does anyone else out there see things this way? What other ministry benefits do you see? What other challenges come to mind?

Thanks in part to the Internet, we now live in a flat world. In other words, we live in a time and place where everybody has, in many ways, an equal voice. For example, people value the opinions of other readers over critics on Amazon, and, if you know what you're doing, anybody can develop a blog or website that can be easily found and appear as authoritative (for example, if you Google "grandpa's eulogy", my blog is the 5th entry you find).

But it's not just in the realm of the Internet where things are getting flat, the same thing is happening in the world of publishing. Be it online services where you upload and they print, or groups like Lifevest Publishing who did the elemental life, anybody can now, for the right price, publish anything and have it appear and equally authoritative to any other book.

So, the question becomes, how do we know which of these voices we should listen to? Which are actually authoritative?

In my case, I tried to do two things when writing the elemental life. First, my goal wasn't to share my own thoughts, feelings, or ideas, rather, I wanted to communicate the Bible in a way that was accessible to people and gave them an opportunity to view it from a different angle.

Second, the work was done in community. With my direct work, it was done in community with the people who gather in our home each Monday. We'd read what I'd written, talk about it, ask questions, and challenge the thoughts expressed. This played an incredible role in the formation of the book. But I also worked with another community of people indirectly, namely theologians from throughout history who have studied the same Bible and sought to communicate what it is saying to others.

What other steps can be taken to help firm up voices of authority in our world? How do you discern who you should and shouldn't listen to?

As I was walking to the office today I noticed a group of people who were in a line along the 16th Street Mall, standing on chairs, and all wearing shirts that read, "Religion is a lie." There was also a link to this site on their shirts.

I figured out fairly quickly what they were doing. They were marking religion as a set of man made rules and regulations and promoting a relationship based Christianity. However, a lot of people along the mall weren't sure what was going on and would engage them in conversation, giving them an opportunity to share their faith.

While I'm not sold on their definition of religion and think that, at some point you need some kind of lens to view Scripture through (the Early Church called this the "rule of faith"), I can say that their approach is a step up from the hunt people down and beat them with Bible verses that occurs far too often along the mall.

Of course, you still have the challenge that it's a one time hit that lacks clear opportunities for follow-up, but at least it's less inclined to build up walls that prevent future conversations.

I have a few friends who occasionally shoot me emails and ask random Bible questions, often because someone asked them and they weren't sure, so they ask me. I received one of these the other night: In both Exodus and Deuteronomy it talks about the 10 commandments and refers to not coveting your neighbors wife. Why doesn't this refer to spouse? The problem the individual who originally asked the question had, was that it's sexist by only addresses men coveting women. So, how do I address this?

First, I think we need to ask, "What's the context of the Law, from the 10 Commandments on down to the final details in Numbers to the second giving in Deuteronomy?"

In Exodus to Numbers, the Law is what God gives to his people at Sinai after he's taken them up and out of Egypt. The giving of the Law begins with a statement of this Gospel action, then moves on to the 10 Commandments, and then on to the rest of the Law. In Deuteronomy, it's a reminder of this Law being given to the people before they enter the Promised Land.

So, why does this matter? Quite simply, because the Law, in both cases, is being given to a group of people who are categorized by their ethnicity and history. They are descendants of Jacob who were brought out of slavery in Egypt (either personally or their direct ancestors). This means that, literally, the 10 Commandments don't apply to you and me.

Now, before anyone loses it, take note of that word, "literally". Because, in a way, the 10 Commandments do apply to you and I. They are, after all, a solid framework for understanding God's will, especially when we follow Jesus interpretation of them as opposed to the interpretation of the Pharisees.

So, for our purposes here, the key for you and I isn't the letter of the 10 Commandments, but their heart ... and that heart doesn't include sexism.

But this still leaves us with the problem that, in the original giving of the Law, God gave the command specifically to men so, "Was God being sexist? Shouldn't God have said that you shouldn't covet your neighbor's spouse?"

In response to this, my mind flashed to Matthew 19 and Jesus teaching on divorce. In short, he doesn't think divorce is a good thing, which makes sense because I've never found anybody who thought divorce was something they were just dying to experience. Challenging Jesus anti-divorce stance, the Pharisees point back to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, part of the Law, which gives permission for a man to divorce his wife because, "he has found some indecency in her".

How did Jesus respond? He says that the Mosiac Law is something less than God's design and is, in a sense, scaled back because those God was giving the law to, had hard hearts. In other words, could their be sexism in there, absolutely, but not because God desires it, but because God recognizes the human condition. I'd say the same thing goes for all those men in the Old Testament who had multiple wives.

If you expand this same heart of God beyond this one issue, it's actually a very good thing that God is aware of our condition, and is willing to work with us in our weakness to accomplish his much larger purposes.

I had an incredible conversation with a friend earlier today.

We were talking about ministry and I made the comment that, in my opinion, the most important ministry a church can do, is men's ministry. This belief stems from the biblical concept of headship, and the ongoing idea that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. My basic argument says that, if congregations equip men to do what God has called men to do, then you're not just doing men's ministry, but, through the trickle down effect, you're also doing women's ministry, family ministry, youth ministry, and children's ministry.

This prompted a side conversation on the whole sin issue and how, in Scripture, outside of Genesis 3, Eve is not the one who is identified as bringing sin into the world. Rather, Adam is given the blame for sin because he failed as a husband at the tree. This sets the stage for the discussion of the New Adam, Christ, who, at his tree (the cross), loved his bride (the Church) fully.

At this point, my friend commented, "And God knew that all this was going to happen from the foundation of the world and yet, he went through with it anyway." As she debated an answer to the why of that question, she suggested that it might be so we would choose God over ourselves. Personally, I don't think this is the right answer, instead, I offered this illustration.

J: When you had your daughter, you were trying to have a child, right?

F: Yes.

J: Before you had her, did you know that she would do things that would hurt you? That there would be times she would reject you? That she very well could not "choose" you but do her own thing?

F: Yes.

J: And yet you had her anyway ... not so that she would choose you and love you, but so that you could choose her and love her no matter what.