Sneakily, each of the descriptions in the previous post correspond to four movements or groups that were present in the culture of 1st century Judea. I took some liberties with the descriptions with two objectives in mind; to offer them as contemporary approaches to culture (as I think we have groups of Christians in our culture who correspond to each of these options), and to trick you into picking one of the options that Jesus rejected!!! It was into the midst of the following spiritual/social/political options that Jesus entered:
=====================
1) Zealots - This was a group who was fed up with the control of foreign powers and false leaders. They were committed to ushering in the Kingdom of God by means of force if necessary (and it was often necessary!). They were constantly fomenting rebellion, and rigorously opposed the Roman occupation of the Jewish homeland. Their posture toward the world was combative and antagonistic.
=====================
2) Essenes - This was a group of people who were committed to living out the values of God's Kingdom. They felt like the best way to accomplish this was to abandon the evil and compromising culture of the day for a pure and godly community in the wilderness. The Essenes built a community in the desert where they could bring God's Kingdom in by leaving behind the people who would hinder it. Their posture towards the world was one of seclusion and retreat.
=====================
3) Pharisees - This was a group who took it upon themselves to maintain the purity of the Jewish people. They held to a rigorous understand of purity, and they wanted to impose that standard upon all other Jewish people, whom they looked down upon as defiled. They believed that God's Kingdom would come when the Jewish people would turn from their dirty lives and enter into a life of holiness. They believed that they possessed this holiness and would dispense it to those who did not. Their posture towards the world was one of arrogance and disdain.
=====================
4) Sadducees - This group had attached themselves to the political powers. They saw their only hope of maintaining their place as the cultural and economic elites as aligning themselves with authority in an attempt to gain it themselves. They were willing to let go of some of the things that God had done, and to deny some of the things that God had promised to do, in order to cement their relationship with the political authorities. Their posture towards the world was one of compromise and connivance.
=====================
Jesus fundamental difference from those above lay in His understanding that God's blessing is always to be given away. These other groups saw God's blessing as theirs by right, they saw their status as 'God's Chosen People' as a reason to exclude others (the Romans, the sinners, the poor, the culture as a whole). Jesus realized that God wanted to breathe restoration into the world through Jesus. The others arrogantly assumed that God wanted to breathe privelege into them so that they could sit atop the world.
Jesus walked out a unique understanding of God's Kingdom. He did not look down on the less fortunates of the world, berating them for their poverty and ignorance like the Pharisees, nor did He choose to abandon the world to chaos and pain as the Essenes had. He chose rather to work to change the state of the world, to heal and emancipate, to resurrect and empower. His method for doing this, however, was not the violent force of the Zealot, nor was it to court the powers of the world, trading God's power for the impotence of worldly play-Kings as the Sadducees did.
Each of these four groups sought to define for themselves the Kingdom of God, usually reserving the place of honor in that Kingdom for people who (coincidentally) looked remarkably like they did. Each of these groups was willing to marginalize some other aspect of society to maintain their own place of primacy in the soon-to-be innaugerated Kingdom of God.
Jesus saw the Kingdom of God as God's good authority coming to those who were marginalized by these groups. His way of bringing the Kingdom was a sharp contrasting rebuttle to the ways listed above. Essentially, Jesus saw Himself as fulfilling God's purposes of putting things right in the world, He took upon Himself the calling of the Nation of Israel, to be a light to the world and a blessing to the nations. Jesus entered into the broken places to bring healing, taking the brokenness and suffering upon Himself so that others could recieve from Him the life of the Spirit. He was not passive, but He was peaceful; He was not compromising, yet He was compassionate; He did not run from the world, nor did He fight it; He embraced the world, with all of its pain and alienation, despair and violence, and He simultaneously embraced heaven, with all of its beauty and purpose, power and joy.
It is to this subversive and provokative way that Jesus beckons us. He bids us, "Come and die with me, so that you might live, and others will live with us... We will bring heaven to earth, and God's Good News to those who are in desparate need."
9.29.2007
9.27.2007
I am the Truth...
Why is it that we can refer to Jesus' words about truth as an excuse to have a verbal barrage of truth claims for every person we meet? The very person we are quoting asked more questions and made more cryptic remarks than He ever dispensed truth-claims. We can use the phrase 'born-again' in ways that flatly contradict the way Jesus used it. (In it's original context it was a brilliant exercise in purposefully confusing terminology, and we have made it into a badge of spiritual politically-correctness...) Instead of becoming like a baby, newly-birthed into a world of God-breathed beauty, we have become like religious grad-students, showing the world how much we know, religious thought police...
If as Christians we believe that truth is a person whom we learn from, not a statement that we believe, how should that change the way we handle people's questions? (Or our own?) How would that affect the way we determine what is and isn't an accurate statement about reality?
If as Christians we believe that truth is a person whom we learn from, not a statement that we believe, how should that change the way we handle people's questions? (Or our own?) How would that affect the way we determine what is and isn't an accurate statement about reality?
9.21.2007
From a Good Friend
Evolution of AFM
Growing up, sports were the focus of my life. I found my purpose in recess basketball games. My identity survived or came crashing down in accordance with the results of a neighborhood football game. There was no greater feeling then sitting in a baseball dugout with my best friends, spitting seeds and cheering on our teammates. There was no greater sense of accomplishment then winning a wrestling match over a childhood rival.
Sports created a simple world for me. I could understand it. I could work within its rules. I think this is why people of all ages sit in front of the television day in and day out and watch sports. There is a part of us that longs for life to make sense again. We long for purpose and an understanding of how to operate within such a purpose. Sports can offer this. But even though sporting events can mirror certain aspects of life, life asks us much bigger questions then can be found in the latest addition of Sports Illustrated, an ESPN highlight reel or through the atmosphere of a Monday night football game.
When I was younger I did not think about life’s biggest questions. I did not worry or ever cry out because of injustice. I never had regret. I was insulated.
As I grew older life became complicated. As a college wrestler athletics became a job. Life presented more questions then answers. My sense of purpose began to fade away.
After college I moved to San Diego and entered into a small theology program through Point Loma Nazarene University and tried to answer some of my questions. To pay the bills I became a certified personal trainer and a high school wrestling coach. All in all, my life revolved around training. I trained people’s bodies in my studio, I trained my wrestlers on how to win on the mat and I was getting spiritually trained in my theology program.
At first the three spheres of my life remained separate. I saw no real connection. However, I soon realized that spirituality encompasses every aspect of our lives. We live holistically. Nothing is secular. Everything is spiritual.
I then became excited about integrating spirituality into health and fitness. My sense of purpose came back. I started to feel alive again.
My excitement continued to grow as “spirituality” became a buzzword in mainstream America. Classes like Yoga and Tai Chi sprouted up everywhere as people began to realize that spirituality is integral to health and that our modern scientific culture was neglecting their spiritual needs.
I then heard about a conference in Las Vegas that dealt with the role of spirituality in health and fitness. The conference was put on by a reputable company whose goal was to inform the rest of the health and fitness community on how to integrate spirituality into their professions. So with the companionship of a good friend and fellow trainer, I packed up my bags and went to Vegas.
The conference was filled with smiling faces and charismatic speakers. Health was in the air. But a true sense of purpose and meaning was not. One speaker after another came forward and reproduced lines from watered down Hallmark cards while providing a relativistic view on life. I was about as inspired as a bachelor doing dishes alone on a Saturday night.
After one of the sessions I walked up to all the speakers who were sitting at a long table and asked them a simple question. “What do you mean when you say the word ‘spirituality?’” Silence was my first response. Which would have been better then what followed. After a long pause they all looked at each other and almost in unison said, “that is a really good question, we don’t have an answer.”
I was shocked. I had expected an answer that would move me, inspire me and potentially change the course of my life forever. But here I was at a conference on the role of spirituality in health yet not one of the keynote speakers knew what they meant when they said the word spirituality!
I left the conference extremely disappointed. Even though I liked the idea of integrating the body, mind and spirit into a holistic approach to training, I knew that spirituality encompassed much more than an avenue to looking good and having deep conversations at coffee shops. Spirituality is based on the living God’s interaction with the physical world and how we participate in that process. On the car ride home my mind raced with questions. The Absolute Fitness Mode is my answer to those questions.
Growing up, sports were the focus of my life. I found my purpose in recess basketball games. My identity survived or came crashing down in accordance with the results of a neighborhood football game. There was no greater feeling then sitting in a baseball dugout with my best friends, spitting seeds and cheering on our teammates. There was no greater sense of accomplishment then winning a wrestling match over a childhood rival.
Sports created a simple world for me. I could understand it. I could work within its rules. I think this is why people of all ages sit in front of the television day in and day out and watch sports. There is a part of us that longs for life to make sense again. We long for purpose and an understanding of how to operate within such a purpose. Sports can offer this. But even though sporting events can mirror certain aspects of life, life asks us much bigger questions then can be found in the latest addition of Sports Illustrated, an ESPN highlight reel or through the atmosphere of a Monday night football game.
When I was younger I did not think about life’s biggest questions. I did not worry or ever cry out because of injustice. I never had regret. I was insulated.
As I grew older life became complicated. As a college wrestler athletics became a job. Life presented more questions then answers. My sense of purpose began to fade away.
After college I moved to San Diego and entered into a small theology program through Point Loma Nazarene University and tried to answer some of my questions. To pay the bills I became a certified personal trainer and a high school wrestling coach. All in all, my life revolved around training. I trained people’s bodies in my studio, I trained my wrestlers on how to win on the mat and I was getting spiritually trained in my theology program.
At first the three spheres of my life remained separate. I saw no real connection. However, I soon realized that spirituality encompasses every aspect of our lives. We live holistically. Nothing is secular. Everything is spiritual.
I then became excited about integrating spirituality into health and fitness. My sense of purpose came back. I started to feel alive again.
My excitement continued to grow as “spirituality” became a buzzword in mainstream America. Classes like Yoga and Tai Chi sprouted up everywhere as people began to realize that spirituality is integral to health and that our modern scientific culture was neglecting their spiritual needs.
I then heard about a conference in Las Vegas that dealt with the role of spirituality in health and fitness. The conference was put on by a reputable company whose goal was to inform the rest of the health and fitness community on how to integrate spirituality into their professions. So with the companionship of a good friend and fellow trainer, I packed up my bags and went to Vegas.
The conference was filled with smiling faces and charismatic speakers. Health was in the air. But a true sense of purpose and meaning was not. One speaker after another came forward and reproduced lines from watered down Hallmark cards while providing a relativistic view on life. I was about as inspired as a bachelor doing dishes alone on a Saturday night.
After one of the sessions I walked up to all the speakers who were sitting at a long table and asked them a simple question. “What do you mean when you say the word ‘spirituality?’” Silence was my first response. Which would have been better then what followed. After a long pause they all looked at each other and almost in unison said, “that is a really good question, we don’t have an answer.”
I was shocked. I had expected an answer that would move me, inspire me and potentially change the course of my life forever. But here I was at a conference on the role of spirituality in health yet not one of the keynote speakers knew what they meant when they said the word spirituality!
I left the conference extremely disappointed. Even though I liked the idea of integrating the body, mind and spirit into a holistic approach to training, I knew that spirituality encompassed much more than an avenue to looking good and having deep conversations at coffee shops. Spirituality is based on the living God’s interaction with the physical world and how we participate in that process. On the car ride home my mind raced with questions. The Absolute Fitness Mode is my answer to those questions.
9.20.2007
The Four Options...
Which best describes you?
=====================
1)
The world is full of people who want to decieve and destroy. They need to be confronted with the truth. You want to expose the lies of those in positions of cultural power. You want to remove the godless authorities from their places of power and show people the truth of God's word. You hope to see godly men and women occupy those positions of control and authority and you are willing to combat the forces working against that hope with whatever social and political means are at your disposal. Your ideal society is one where God has been placed at the top, He is publicly honored by politicians and leaders, professors and business owners. All of society is ordered by the ways of God, from schools and courtrooms, to public places and private homes; the ways of God are taught as the only right way to live.
=====================
2)
The world is a place that has nothing of value to you. You desire to stear clear of those who would corrupt you or your family with their godless ways and evil deeds. Your ideal society is a group of people who are devoted to living for God, who have removed themselves from the evil ways of the world. You would love to live somewhere in the country (living a simple, rural lifestyle) with these godly people, teaching your children the good life, and drawing closer to God.
=====================
3)
The world is a dirty place that needs cleaning up, you find yourself wanting to teach people the right way to live. If the world would only take note of what God has been saying and begin to obey, the world would be a better place. You have little patience with people who chose a life of ignorance and degradation. Your ideal society is one where everyone has comitted to living a pure and righteous life. If people would only follow your example, and listen to what you tell them, they would discover that they too can be blessed by God.
=====================
4)
The world has much to offer. If you could only attach yourself to the right people and the right insititutions, you would be able to use the power and energy and knowledge for good. You want to enlist the aid of those in power to accomplish the goals of God. Your ideal society is one where the spiritual community is on good terms with the secular authorities and those in positions of cultural influence. You don't want to 'rock the boat' unneccisarily, and are willing to find healthy and appropriate compromises to make things work and get things done.
If you read this, I would love to hear which of these viewpoints you would align yourself with. I would probably fit in the number 3 category, although I would have said number 2 a few years ago...
=====================
1)
The world is full of people who want to decieve and destroy. They need to be confronted with the truth. You want to expose the lies of those in positions of cultural power. You want to remove the godless authorities from their places of power and show people the truth of God's word. You hope to see godly men and women occupy those positions of control and authority and you are willing to combat the forces working against that hope with whatever social and political means are at your disposal. Your ideal society is one where God has been placed at the top, He is publicly honored by politicians and leaders, professors and business owners. All of society is ordered by the ways of God, from schools and courtrooms, to public places and private homes; the ways of God are taught as the only right way to live.
=====================
2)
The world is a place that has nothing of value to you. You desire to stear clear of those who would corrupt you or your family with their godless ways and evil deeds. Your ideal society is a group of people who are devoted to living for God, who have removed themselves from the evil ways of the world. You would love to live somewhere in the country (living a simple, rural lifestyle) with these godly people, teaching your children the good life, and drawing closer to God.
=====================
3)
The world is a dirty place that needs cleaning up, you find yourself wanting to teach people the right way to live. If the world would only take note of what God has been saying and begin to obey, the world would be a better place. You have little patience with people who chose a life of ignorance and degradation. Your ideal society is one where everyone has comitted to living a pure and righteous life. If people would only follow your example, and listen to what you tell them, they would discover that they too can be blessed by God.
=====================
4)
The world has much to offer. If you could only attach yourself to the right people and the right insititutions, you would be able to use the power and energy and knowledge for good. You want to enlist the aid of those in power to accomplish the goals of God. Your ideal society is one where the spiritual community is on good terms with the secular authorities and those in positions of cultural influence. You don't want to 'rock the boat' unneccisarily, and are willing to find healthy and appropriate compromises to make things work and get things done.
If you read this, I would love to hear which of these viewpoints you would align yourself with. I would probably fit in the number 3 category, although I would have said number 2 a few years ago...
9.14.2007
These words do not apply to you...
Constitution
I happened to listen to a popular radio talkshow the other day that has a Paul McCartney song as it's theme song. Here are the lyrics:
This is my right - A right given by God
To live a free life - To live in freedom
Talkin' about freedom - I'm talkin' 'bout freedom
I will fight - For the right
To live in freedom
Anyone tries to take it away
They'll have to answer
'Cause this is my right
I'm talkin' about freedom - Talkin' 'bout freedom
I will fight - For the right
To live in freedom
I was really disturbed by this, precisely because this show is overtly 'Christian.' These lyrics stand in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus. For someone to claim to follow Him and then to endorse the agenda that this song proposes as being in line with His teachings is simply irresponsible.
My pastor relayed a story to me about one of his college professors. The man read aloud to his class the famous lines from the Declaration of Independence; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." He then instructed his class:
"If you are a follower of Jesus, then you cannot claim that you have any rights whatsoever; this Declaration does not apply to you."
I happened to listen to a popular radio talkshow the other day that has a Paul McCartney song as it's theme song. Here are the lyrics:
This is my right - A right given by God
To live a free life - To live in freedom
Talkin' about freedom - I'm talkin' 'bout freedom
I will fight - For the right
To live in freedom
Anyone tries to take it away
They'll have to answer
'Cause this is my right
I'm talkin' about freedom - Talkin' 'bout freedom
I will fight - For the right
To live in freedom
I was really disturbed by this, precisely because this show is overtly 'Christian.' These lyrics stand in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus. For someone to claim to follow Him and then to endorse the agenda that this song proposes as being in line with His teachings is simply irresponsible.
My pastor relayed a story to me about one of his college professors. The man read aloud to his class the famous lines from the Declaration of Independence; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." He then instructed his class:
"If you are a follower of Jesus, then you cannot claim that you have any rights whatsoever; this Declaration does not apply to you."
9.10.2007
The 'Good' Book?
The following is a response to a thread elsewhere, I thought it would be profitable to post it here:
Helen asked: "...how do you know it is 'the correct version'of Christianity?"
It seems like this is an unintentionally misleading way of approaching the subject. If you asked a scientist if they were 'staying true' to Darwin's theory of evolution, or Newton's on gravitation, they would respond, "That is not the goal, the goal is to accurately describe reality." I don't really desire the correct 'Christianity,' but rather the correct version of reality!
For this reason I hope to use other 'versions' of Christianity as aids to understanding reality, but not as definitions of reality. Just as a scientist will take advantage of the work of others while simultaneously proffering her own. I don't attempt to stay true to Luther or Augustine, Billy Graham, Pope John Paul II, or Benny Hinn.
Helen also stated: "I respect your opinion but with all due respect, that's all it is, right?"
Most assuredly, that is all that it is. I don't pretend to be anything other than what I am; a scientist will speak of things she doesn't begin to fully comprehend, and so too humans speak of the even greater reality that is God. However, that is not to discount all attempt to understand. I would hope to dialogue about the matter in question, how else are we to do this if not first by stating our own position?
You (and others) had stated that the Bible was full of contradiction. When I asked for a particular incidence, you offered that of Paul v Jesus on the question of 'salvation by faith.' If my response is to be discarded as 'mere personal opinion,' than what is to be the point of our dialogue? I would love to hear why you find them to be contradictory on the subject, and assume you would want to understand why I find them to be complementary.
Which gets us to the point of contradiction itself:
I fully appreciate that 'arguments between Christians who are very familiar with the Bible, over what the Bible teaches, are alive and well,' I don't think that this is problematic for what I am trying to say. There are certainly some things that are taught by Jesus and His followers that are difficult to reconcile, but many of these are intentional paradoxes akin to the article linked above. Most contradictions, however, are simply failures to aproach the text on its own terms.
You said, "...if the Bible was clear and non-contradictory, Christians who all say they believe it would not have unresolvable debates over what it says." But I think that this places to much trust in human ability to set aside personal desires and perspectives. On top of this, I think this highlights the main problem with talking about 'contradictions.' It forces one to approach the Bible in a way that was never intended. If I read Psalms as a manual for understanding the physical construction of the universe, then I am quite simply and willfully ignorant.
I did get around to the list of contradictions, some of the 388 are outright deceptive (proverbs 26:4-5), (I only looked at maybe 30) every single verse was provided in an archaic translation, without context, and without an attempt made to understand the point within the larger context of the writing. Perhaps if I spent time sorting through I could find something a little more 'intellectually cohesive' but that list is precisely the reason why I ask people for personal examples...
You referenced 'key texts,' it is exactly this that I find problematic. What are the 'key texts' to Dickens' Great Expectations? ...or Handel's Messiah? ...or the U. S. Constitution? ...or U2's Helter Skelter? ...or MLK Jr. Epistle to the Americans?
Also, I think I was unclear (it seems such a common problem for me!!) when I mentioned the author's intent...
I was not refering to God, but to the author. That is what I mean by taking something in context. If I am trying to understand what the person who wrote it meant by what they said, (instead of taking a phrase and using it as a 'key text') then I will be in a position to ask the deeper (and faith inspired) question, "What is God saying through this?" An even better example of contradiction (although on the same topic) is "justified by faith" in Galatians and "justified by works" in James; here the actual words directly contradict each other, but this 'contradiction' requires that we assume it is proper to approach these letters with an 'atomistic' dissection. My humble assertion is that this assumption is incorrect; language doesn't work that way.
(I will be the first to admit that often American Christians approach the Bible in exactly this rigid, 'reductionistic' and scientific way...)
I don't want to be seen as advocating 'special insight' but rather a different approach. Instead of approaching the Bible as a compilation of absolute truth statements, approach it on it's own terms...
Helen asked: "...how do you know it is 'the correct version'of Christianity?"
It seems like this is an unintentionally misleading way of approaching the subject. If you asked a scientist if they were 'staying true' to Darwin's theory of evolution, or Newton's on gravitation, they would respond, "That is not the goal, the goal is to accurately describe reality." I don't really desire the correct 'Christianity,' but rather the correct version of reality!
For this reason I hope to use other 'versions' of Christianity as aids to understanding reality, but not as definitions of reality. Just as a scientist will take advantage of the work of others while simultaneously proffering her own. I don't attempt to stay true to Luther or Augustine, Billy Graham, Pope John Paul II, or Benny Hinn.
Helen also stated: "I respect your opinion but with all due respect, that's all it is, right?"
Most assuredly, that is all that it is. I don't pretend to be anything other than what I am; a scientist will speak of things she doesn't begin to fully comprehend, and so too humans speak of the even greater reality that is God. However, that is not to discount all attempt to understand. I would hope to dialogue about the matter in question, how else are we to do this if not first by stating our own position?
You (and others) had stated that the Bible was full of contradiction. When I asked for a particular incidence, you offered that of Paul v Jesus on the question of 'salvation by faith.' If my response is to be discarded as 'mere personal opinion,' than what is to be the point of our dialogue? I would love to hear why you find them to be contradictory on the subject, and assume you would want to understand why I find them to be complementary.
Which gets us to the point of contradiction itself:
I fully appreciate that 'arguments between Christians who are very familiar with the Bible, over what the Bible teaches, are alive and well,' I don't think that this is problematic for what I am trying to say. There are certainly some things that are taught by Jesus and His followers that are difficult to reconcile, but many of these are intentional paradoxes akin to the article linked above. Most contradictions, however, are simply failures to aproach the text on its own terms.
You said, "...if the Bible was clear and non-contradictory, Christians who all say they believe it would not have unresolvable debates over what it says." But I think that this places to much trust in human ability to set aside personal desires and perspectives. On top of this, I think this highlights the main problem with talking about 'contradictions.' It forces one to approach the Bible in a way that was never intended. If I read Psalms as a manual for understanding the physical construction of the universe, then I am quite simply and willfully ignorant.
I did get around to the list of contradictions, some of the 388 are outright deceptive (proverbs 26:4-5), (I only looked at maybe 30) every single verse was provided in an archaic translation, without context, and without an attempt made to understand the point within the larger context of the writing. Perhaps if I spent time sorting through I could find something a little more 'intellectually cohesive' but that list is precisely the reason why I ask people for personal examples...
You referenced 'key texts,' it is exactly this that I find problematic. What are the 'key texts' to Dickens' Great Expectations? ...or Handel's Messiah? ...or the U. S. Constitution? ...or U2's Helter Skelter? ...or MLK Jr. Epistle to the Americans?
Also, I think I was unclear (it seems such a common problem for me!!) when I mentioned the author's intent...
I was not refering to God, but to the author. That is what I mean by taking something in context. If I am trying to understand what the person who wrote it meant by what they said, (instead of taking a phrase and using it as a 'key text') then I will be in a position to ask the deeper (and faith inspired) question, "What is God saying through this?" An even better example of contradiction (although on the same topic) is "justified by faith" in Galatians and "justified by works" in James; here the actual words directly contradict each other, but this 'contradiction' requires that we assume it is proper to approach these letters with an 'atomistic' dissection. My humble assertion is that this assumption is incorrect; language doesn't work that way.
(I will be the first to admit that often American Christians approach the Bible in exactly this rigid, 'reductionistic' and scientific way...)
I don't want to be seen as advocating 'special insight' but rather a different approach. Instead of approaching the Bible as a compilation of absolute truth statements, approach it on it's own terms...
9.09.2007
The Love of God Demands a Life of Activism
"So the greatest of all virtues is love. It is here that we find the true meaning of the Christian faith. This is at bottom the meaning of the cross. The great event on Calvary signifies more than a meaningless drama that took place on the stage of history. It is a telescope through which we look out into the long vista of eternity and see the love of God breaking forth into time. It is an eternal reminder to a power drunk generation that love is most durable power in the world, and that it is at bottom the heartbeat of the moral cosmos. Only through achieving this love can you expect to matriculate into the university of eternal life."
Martin Luther King Jr.
Martin Luther King Jr.
9.07.2007
Conservative Politics and Conservative Lives
Why do conservative Christians also live conservative lives?
Let me explain the question...
Christians in America tend to be politically conservative, although there are plenty of liberal Christians as well, however, the typical conservative Christian (who views theology in a conservative way, and trends towards the conservative end of the political spectrum) also tends to live those political values out on the personal level.
This is not the proper time to discuss my own political views (that will only muddy the water), but suffice it to say that I have no problem with Christians aligning themselves with conservative politics. If you are convinced that the policies proffered by conservative politicians would provide for the welfare of the people then, by all means, vote your conscience. The problem arises, however, when the conservative political philosophy is brought to the personal level.
The typical conservative is against redistribution of wealth through things like Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, etc. This may very well be an innapropriate way of running a country. However, if that same posture is applied at the personal level, then we are in direct contradiction with the ethic of the Kingdom of God.
It is exactly this contradiction that I see in conservative Christianity. The emphasis on personal responsibility has led conservative Christians to eschew helping the poor in their community. Perhaps they will give a little money, even less time and energy, but only very rarely will they actually involve themselves in the lives of the needy people in the world.
The single driving force (at the personal level) behind the conservative Christian way of life (in my humble, yet accurate, opinion) is a desire to create a social bubble of safety and comfort, removed from the evils of the world; drug abuse, vulgarity, sexual perversion, etc. This force is in diametrical opposition to the mandate of the Gospel.
What this amounts to is the very thing that Jesus condemned in the Pharisees; using their status as God's elect to abuse the very people they were 'elected' to bless!!! We, like Abraham, have not been chosen by God to enjoy His blessing, but to give away His blessing.
===============================
To be a disciple is to become a child; embracing change and becoming a learner is central to being a Christian. (What else would 'born again' refer to?) This means that we can never have a condescending attitude. We are not like spiritual PhD's dispensing wisdom, rather we must be like spiritual children constantly asking, "Papa, how should I do this?"
If we approach life as a disciple we will see the glaring problem with removing ourselves from the problems of the world.; taking our spiritual blessing and 'leaving the playground.'
===============================
I propose that Christians should be orthodox in theology, ambiguous in politics, and radical in lifestyle.
Let me explain the question...
Christians in America tend to be politically conservative, although there are plenty of liberal Christians as well, however, the typical conservative Christian (who views theology in a conservative way, and trends towards the conservative end of the political spectrum) also tends to live those political values out on the personal level.
This is not the proper time to discuss my own political views (that will only muddy the water), but suffice it to say that I have no problem with Christians aligning themselves with conservative politics. If you are convinced that the policies proffered by conservative politicians would provide for the welfare of the people then, by all means, vote your conscience. The problem arises, however, when the conservative political philosophy is brought to the personal level.
The typical conservative is against redistribution of wealth through things like Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, etc. This may very well be an innapropriate way of running a country. However, if that same posture is applied at the personal level, then we are in direct contradiction with the ethic of the Kingdom of God.
It is exactly this contradiction that I see in conservative Christianity. The emphasis on personal responsibility has led conservative Christians to eschew helping the poor in their community. Perhaps they will give a little money, even less time and energy, but only very rarely will they actually involve themselves in the lives of the needy people in the world.
The single driving force (at the personal level) behind the conservative Christian way of life (in my humble, yet accurate, opinion) is a desire to create a social bubble of safety and comfort, removed from the evils of the world; drug abuse, vulgarity, sexual perversion, etc. This force is in diametrical opposition to the mandate of the Gospel.
What this amounts to is the very thing that Jesus condemned in the Pharisees; using their status as God's elect to abuse the very people they were 'elected' to bless!!! We, like Abraham, have not been chosen by God to enjoy His blessing, but to give away His blessing.
===============================
To be a disciple is to become a child; embracing change and becoming a learner is central to being a Christian. (What else would 'born again' refer to?) This means that we can never have a condescending attitude. We are not like spiritual PhD's dispensing wisdom, rather we must be like spiritual children constantly asking, "Papa, how should I do this?"
If we approach life as a disciple we will see the glaring problem with removing ourselves from the problems of the world.; taking our spiritual blessing and 'leaving the playground.'
===============================
I propose that Christians should be orthodox in theology, ambiguous in politics, and radical in lifestyle.
9.05.2007
Friends from Munich
We received an email a few months back asking if we would be willing to house a group of three Germans traveling through the area. We agreed, not thinking much about it, as we have an entire third floor that is currently empty. We thought perhaps that they would stay the night and leave the next morning, we assumed they would not have much impact on our normal routines. We did not realize what was in store for us...
They showed up after a dissapointing week of Church Planting; Ingo and his new (and newly pregnant) wife Gisela, and their friend Maryann. They ended up staying for two days. It was one of the most encouraging, and uplifting encounters with perfect strangers that I have ever had. From the very first conversation we had, till the time they left, it was like having family visit in that they were so comfortable to be around, and yet there were all sorts of interesting things to find out about them (both as people and as emmisaries from a foreign land).
We were able to have some really wonderful conversations about what God was up to in our lives and in the world, they joined us for our Sunday service to the Retirement Facility, they spent time with us praying and worshiping, and they spent time with some of the folks from our Church. They had some very encouraging observations about who we were and what we were doing, they also were an encouragement to one of the young men in our Church. I came away from the weekend with my spirits lifted and refreshed.
At one point during the weekend I was struck by something...
The authors of the letters that now make up the Christian Bible speak often of the Church in ways that highlight the intimate bond that exists among the community who have been touched by the Spirit of Jesus; 'The Family of God,' 'The Body of Christ,' etc. In my time with our visitors I discovered this bond with them.
I have relationships that are deep and commited, friends for whom I would give my life, and with whom I have labored and laughed, comforted and cried. This was unique, however, in that I realized that it was not we who had created this bond by 'joining the same club,' nor even by our long hours together, but rather the bond that I discovered was present because of God's action in our lives. I found in Ingo a kindred spirit, the Spirit of Christ.
I had a moment of illumination, a realization that this man and I had submitted our lives to the same purpose in the world. It was like finding out after the fact that someone had shared the same trench with you in battle; there was a bond that was discovered, not one that was created.
This is what God intends for all of us to have with all people; a sense of belonging to the same central reality, God and His Kingdom. God desires that we could enter into relationships with others that are easy and encouraging, that can become the foundation for a life of joy and purpose, beauty and hope.
They showed up after a dissapointing week of Church Planting; Ingo and his new (and newly pregnant) wife Gisela, and their friend Maryann. They ended up staying for two days. It was one of the most encouraging, and uplifting encounters with perfect strangers that I have ever had. From the very first conversation we had, till the time they left, it was like having family visit in that they were so comfortable to be around, and yet there were all sorts of interesting things to find out about them (both as people and as emmisaries from a foreign land).
We were able to have some really wonderful conversations about what God was up to in our lives and in the world, they joined us for our Sunday service to the Retirement Facility, they spent time with us praying and worshiping, and they spent time with some of the folks from our Church. They had some very encouraging observations about who we were and what we were doing, they also were an encouragement to one of the young men in our Church. I came away from the weekend with my spirits lifted and refreshed.
At one point during the weekend I was struck by something...
The authors of the letters that now make up the Christian Bible speak often of the Church in ways that highlight the intimate bond that exists among the community who have been touched by the Spirit of Jesus; 'The Family of God,' 'The Body of Christ,' etc. In my time with our visitors I discovered this bond with them.
I have relationships that are deep and commited, friends for whom I would give my life, and with whom I have labored and laughed, comforted and cried. This was unique, however, in that I realized that it was not we who had created this bond by 'joining the same club,' nor even by our long hours together, but rather the bond that I discovered was present because of God's action in our lives. I found in Ingo a kindred spirit, the Spirit of Christ.
I had a moment of illumination, a realization that this man and I had submitted our lives to the same purpose in the world. It was like finding out after the fact that someone had shared the same trench with you in battle; there was a bond that was discovered, not one that was created.
This is what God intends for all of us to have with all people; a sense of belonging to the same central reality, God and His Kingdom. God desires that we could enter into relationships with others that are easy and encouraging, that can become the foundation for a life of joy and purpose, beauty and hope.
8.29.2007
Be All That You Can Be!
No this isn't a rerun of an old US Army commercial...
I had some visitors a week or two back from Germany (I am still putting together a rumination on their visit) and I got to reminisce about the Church we were sent out from. I had a conversation with Ingo on my front porch that involved me explaining my thankfulness at having been a part of our sending church for the years that we were there. He asked, "Why was it so special?" This was some of my response:
Church is not supposed to be about putting the best person in the best place to do the best job; creating a perfect product for the consumption of those who show up. There are so many problems with this approach to Church (it creates a clergy/laity dichotomy between those who are and those who are not, it promotes comfort over sacrifice, it promotes a 'discriminating palate' instead of an activist lifestyle, etc.) but I would rather discuss the amazing aspects of a different approach to Church.
If we stop trying to get the best person to come and put on the best show, and instead use the various aspects of Church to be the 'training grounds' for the individuals who perform the various functions, then we are begining to live out the meaning of such passages as Ephesians 4:11-16.
Here are some practical examples:
Why do we want the best worship leader leading worship? Wouldn't we rather have someone step into that position who will be grown and developed by their time in that role? Instead of finding the person who knows how to develop and oversee small groups in a church and paying them to come to your church and do that there, why not let someone who is already in the church yet doesn't know what they are doing give it a shot, in the process they will be developing the very attributes that God wants to produce in them?
There are some fundamental assumptions behind such an approach:
1) The Church's primary role is to represent the person of Jesus to the world in attitude and action, word and deed, both corporately and (more importantly) individually.
2) The role of Church leadership is not ministering to the Church 'laity;' it is equipping, educating, and empowering the 'normal' Christian to minister to the world.
(I have heard it speculated that the Apostle Paul would define the role of baptism in an individual's life the way we today view ordination. In other words, the way most people today think of the role of priests or pastors is the way Paul understood the normal Christian life.)
3) Success in spiritual terms has to do with an individual's connection to God's realm of power, not with the number of people connected to our particular organization.
4) Completing a well-defined task is not the same thing as spiritual growth.
5) Being given the answers to your questions is nowhere near as beneficial as the experience that comes from figuring out the answer.
6) If you are lacking in gifted people in your local community you do not have a resource problem you have a training problem.
Some practical ways that I have seen this walked out at the Church we were sent out from:
Consistently placing less qualified people in positions of responsibility; from the managers of the Coffee Shop to the worship leader, to the pastors, to the small group leaders, to the outreach directors, to the Sunday School leaders, etc. our church viewed a willingness to learn and to serve, and a heartfelt love for Jesus and hatred of their own sin, as the sole prerequisites for accepting responsibility in our community.
"Soft Architecture" - An intentional fuzziness in structure that provided enough room for people to struggle with God. Individuals were forced to seek their own answers, their own job descriptions, their own growth into the task at hand. There was some structure, but mostly there was encouraging relationship with other spiritual sojourners.
A willingness to let people 'mess things up' by learning through doing. Just like a parent does more work in letting their three-year-old 'help' cook dinner (but is providing all sorts of wonderful opportunities for maturing and bonding), so it is more work to let someone learn how to lead a ministry after they start leading it.
All this to say: the Church should be doing everything in its power to help every individual connected to it to come to look like Jesus
I had some visitors a week or two back from Germany (I am still putting together a rumination on their visit) and I got to reminisce about the Church we were sent out from. I had a conversation with Ingo on my front porch that involved me explaining my thankfulness at having been a part of our sending church for the years that we were there. He asked, "Why was it so special?" This was some of my response:
Church is not supposed to be about putting the best person in the best place to do the best job; creating a perfect product for the consumption of those who show up. There are so many problems with this approach to Church (it creates a clergy/laity dichotomy between those who are and those who are not, it promotes comfort over sacrifice, it promotes a 'discriminating palate' instead of an activist lifestyle, etc.) but I would rather discuss the amazing aspects of a different approach to Church.
If we stop trying to get the best person to come and put on the best show, and instead use the various aspects of Church to be the 'training grounds' for the individuals who perform the various functions, then we are begining to live out the meaning of such passages as Ephesians 4:11-16.
Here are some practical examples:
Why do we want the best worship leader leading worship? Wouldn't we rather have someone step into that position who will be grown and developed by their time in that role? Instead of finding the person who knows how to develop and oversee small groups in a church and paying them to come to your church and do that there, why not let someone who is already in the church yet doesn't know what they are doing give it a shot, in the process they will be developing the very attributes that God wants to produce in them?
There are some fundamental assumptions behind such an approach:
1) The Church's primary role is to represent the person of Jesus to the world in attitude and action, word and deed, both corporately and (more importantly) individually.
2) The role of Church leadership is not ministering to the Church 'laity;' it is equipping, educating, and empowering the 'normal' Christian to minister to the world.
(I have heard it speculated that the Apostle Paul would define the role of baptism in an individual's life the way we today view ordination. In other words, the way most people today think of the role of priests or pastors is the way Paul understood the normal Christian life.)
3) Success in spiritual terms has to do with an individual's connection to God's realm of power, not with the number of people connected to our particular organization.
4) Completing a well-defined task is not the same thing as spiritual growth.
5) Being given the answers to your questions is nowhere near as beneficial as the experience that comes from figuring out the answer.
6) If you are lacking in gifted people in your local community you do not have a resource problem you have a training problem.
Some practical ways that I have seen this walked out at the Church we were sent out from:
Consistently placing less qualified people in positions of responsibility; from the managers of the Coffee Shop to the worship leader, to the pastors, to the small group leaders, to the outreach directors, to the Sunday School leaders, etc. our church viewed a willingness to learn and to serve, and a heartfelt love for Jesus and hatred of their own sin, as the sole prerequisites for accepting responsibility in our community.
"Soft Architecture" - An intentional fuzziness in structure that provided enough room for people to struggle with God. Individuals were forced to seek their own answers, their own job descriptions, their own growth into the task at hand. There was some structure, but mostly there was encouraging relationship with other spiritual sojourners.
A willingness to let people 'mess things up' by learning through doing. Just like a parent does more work in letting their three-year-old 'help' cook dinner (but is providing all sorts of wonderful opportunities for maturing and bonding), so it is more work to let someone learn how to lead a ministry after they start leading it.
All this to say: the Church should be doing everything in its power to help every individual connected to it to come to look like Jesus
8.28.2007
Healthy Community
Some thoughts on community:
Communities are defined by those inside and those outside; the Church is a community that exists for the sake of those outside of it.
The community established by Jesus should accept and welcome everyone on the sole basis of their value as a human being, dearly loved by the Creator.
Jesus' community cares about people so much that it is unwilling to see them destroy themselves, others, or the world around them. His Church will do everything that love demands it to do to prevent that destruction.
Community is not possible without a significant level of personal knowledge and transparency; it is not possible to have community with people who you do not know or do not know you.
Communities are full of people who belong to each other. Despite the personal price (in terms of annoyance, lost energy or time, money, emotional pain, misunderstanding, etc.) people will not abandon the relationships within the community.
The Church contains within itself (this is somewhat misleading as the Divine Wind is also present within the Church) all that it needs to function in power and blessing. The community on the Way of Jesus needs no additional 'ministries' or 'programs,' parachurch organizations or governing bodies, to accomplish the purposes of God for which it has been placed upon the earth. "The local Church is the hope of the world!"
God's community is not divided by economic, racial, gender, sexual, political, social, educational, or any other lines.
Communities are defined by those inside and those outside; the Church is a community that exists for the sake of those outside of it.
The community established by Jesus should accept and welcome everyone on the sole basis of their value as a human being, dearly loved by the Creator.
Jesus' community cares about people so much that it is unwilling to see them destroy themselves, others, or the world around them. His Church will do everything that love demands it to do to prevent that destruction.
Community is not possible without a significant level of personal knowledge and transparency; it is not possible to have community with people who you do not know or do not know you.
Communities are full of people who belong to each other. Despite the personal price (in terms of annoyance, lost energy or time, money, emotional pain, misunderstanding, etc.) people will not abandon the relationships within the community.
The Church contains within itself (this is somewhat misleading as the Divine Wind is also present within the Church) all that it needs to function in power and blessing. The community on the Way of Jesus needs no additional 'ministries' or 'programs,' parachurch organizations or governing bodies, to accomplish the purposes of God for which it has been placed upon the earth. "The local Church is the hope of the world!"
God's community is not divided by economic, racial, gender, sexual, political, social, educational, or any other lines.
8.23.2007
Institutionalization...
I had someone tell me that psychology has taken the place of the elderly in our society. What we used to look to our grandparents for, we now pay someone $100 dollars an hour to do for us (and of course we pay someone to take care of our grandparents in the process as well...), and I don't think we are better of for the 'professionalization' of wisdom at living.
We have taken essential aspects of society and 'trained' people how to 'do it better' and then watched as society is no longer capable of adressing these aspects...
We have schools that don't educate effectively, a criminal justice system that perpetuates criminal behavior, and a social welfare system that creates poverty; this is due to the underlying assumption that professionals are better at doing it than community is, and so undermining community in the process.
No wonder we have seen the atomization of families, the failure of community services, etc. there are professionals to do those things for us...
...do you think we are better off?
We have taken essential aspects of society and 'trained' people how to 'do it better' and then watched as society is no longer capable of adressing these aspects...
We have schools that don't educate effectively, a criminal justice system that perpetuates criminal behavior, and a social welfare system that creates poverty; this is due to the underlying assumption that professionals are better at doing it than community is, and so undermining community in the process.
No wonder we have seen the atomization of families, the failure of community services, etc. there are professionals to do those things for us...
...do you think we are better off?
8.19.2007
Brooke Astor
What is written on the tombstone of a woman who gave away several hundred million dollars?
Would you like to have that written on yours?
Would you like to have that written on yours?
8.17.2007
Basil Rocks!
If you live alone, whose feet will you wash?
- Saint Basil
Not to be confused with the other Saint Basil who was given the title Yurodivy
- Saint Basil
Not to be confused with the other Saint Basil who was given the title Yurodivy
8.16.2007
SEX Part X
These are some closing thoughts on the topic:
Click on the title link to read previous posts.
========================
We are told that we cannot change who we are, and that it would be unwise to try. It is this mentality that leads to arguments in defense of pedophilia. If what I feel is not subject to critique or to change, if my desires are legitimate simply because they exist, then where does morality go? How do we decry the arguments of Mr McClellan?
Certainly our culture is not ready yet for such a position as his, without fundamental change in the way we determine wrong and right, however, where else is it likely to go? I am not trying to yell out, "the sky is falling!" but rather ask the question, "How do we rebut these arguments supporting rampant lawlessness, if we rule out an appeal to some standard of right and wrong that exists irrespective of our feelings toward it?"
It is easy to see the lie if we take it into other realms of human behavior. To say, "I desire to have sex with my girlfriend, therefore I should have sex with her" is no different a statement than, "I desire my neighbor's car, therefore I should take it," or "I don't like my employer, therefore I should punch him."
Simply put, the desire for something does not, in and of itself, legitimize the fulfillment of that desire.
=============================
Having said this, I would like to point out, a large part of the problem is our weak sense of joy, and our unwillingness to pursue true pleasure!
"Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds ours desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."
-C. S. Lewis
Like Esau traded his birthright for a bowl of soup, (Genesis 25) we trade away our God-given sexuality for fleeting pleasures that diminish as they are attained. We trade the joys of marriage (which is much more deeply and naturally sexual) for that of the idolized and romanticized life of the 'porn star.'
The adult film industry is portrayed as a glamorous world of delight...
...why is it then that the porn stars fantasize about a normal life, while they struggle with impotence, and pop pills to keep the genital herpes from breaking out?
It is not the married couple in their monogamy who are 'missing out' on sexual pleasure...
=========================
I have come to this fundamental conclusion about sexuality (it is, of course, about everything, not just sexuality):
The way of the Cross is the way of return to true human-ness...
Our humanity has been corrupted, it must 'reboot' with the 'system disk.' Jesus is that system disk; the early Church called Him the "Second Adam." Jesus is the Son of Man, the quintessential human being, the perfect representation of what it means to be human. He is the 'new' man, the beginning point of the newly reconstituted humanity, the firstborn over all creation. In Jesus we begin to see the true shape of our humanity.
If this is true then we are called to a radical rethinking of our way of life. In fact we are called to a kind of death. Our very selves must be given over, and we must take the self of Jesus. This is the way to become who and what we were meant to be.
Jesus the truly human one defines humanity, and so sexuality is also defined by him, and so our sexuality must also be submited to him (along with everything else) for crucifixion and resurrection.
I am fully aware of the arguements that some will make. The Cross responds to our claims about ourselves by stating, "The way you are defining yourself is not the central problem, the problem is that you are defining yourself in the first place! Come to me and let me set the broken bone, let me start the song in the right key, let me be the foundation for your building, let me suffer the consequences off your actions!"
Click on the title link to read previous posts.
========================
We are told that we cannot change who we are, and that it would be unwise to try. It is this mentality that leads to arguments in defense of pedophilia. If what I feel is not subject to critique or to change, if my desires are legitimate simply because they exist, then where does morality go? How do we decry the arguments of Mr McClellan?
Certainly our culture is not ready yet for such a position as his, without fundamental change in the way we determine wrong and right, however, where else is it likely to go? I am not trying to yell out, "the sky is falling!" but rather ask the question, "How do we rebut these arguments supporting rampant lawlessness, if we rule out an appeal to some standard of right and wrong that exists irrespective of our feelings toward it?"
It is easy to see the lie if we take it into other realms of human behavior. To say, "I desire to have sex with my girlfriend, therefore I should have sex with her" is no different a statement than, "I desire my neighbor's car, therefore I should take it," or "I don't like my employer, therefore I should punch him."
Simply put, the desire for something does not, in and of itself, legitimize the fulfillment of that desire.
=============================
Having said this, I would like to point out, a large part of the problem is our weak sense of joy, and our unwillingness to pursue true pleasure!
"Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds ours desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."
-C. S. Lewis
Like Esau traded his birthright for a bowl of soup, (Genesis 25) we trade away our God-given sexuality for fleeting pleasures that diminish as they are attained. We trade the joys of marriage (which is much more deeply and naturally sexual) for that of the idolized and romanticized life of the 'porn star.'
The adult film industry is portrayed as a glamorous world of delight...
...why is it then that the porn stars fantasize about a normal life, while they struggle with impotence, and pop pills to keep the genital herpes from breaking out?
It is not the married couple in their monogamy who are 'missing out' on sexual pleasure...
=========================
I have come to this fundamental conclusion about sexuality (it is, of course, about everything, not just sexuality):
The way of the Cross is the way of return to true human-ness...
Our humanity has been corrupted, it must 'reboot' with the 'system disk.' Jesus is that system disk; the early Church called Him the "Second Adam." Jesus is the Son of Man, the quintessential human being, the perfect representation of what it means to be human. He is the 'new' man, the beginning point of the newly reconstituted humanity, the firstborn over all creation. In Jesus we begin to see the true shape of our humanity.
If this is true then we are called to a radical rethinking of our way of life. In fact we are called to a kind of death. Our very selves must be given over, and we must take the self of Jesus. This is the way to become who and what we were meant to be.
Jesus the truly human one defines humanity, and so sexuality is also defined by him, and so our sexuality must also be submited to him (along with everything else) for crucifixion and resurrection.
I am fully aware of the arguements that some will make. The Cross responds to our claims about ourselves by stating, "The way you are defining yourself is not the central problem, the problem is that you are defining yourself in the first place! Come to me and let me set the broken bone, let me start the song in the right key, let me be the foundation for your building, let me suffer the consequences off your actions!"
8.13.2007
Jesus' Pizza and the KJV
So I returned to the concert, pizza in hand...
I was able to have a couple of brief conversations about what I was doing and why. But most people were more interested in telling me why the street preachers were wrong, or what they disagreed with about Christianity, or what their own beliefs were. I did get to have a neat conversation with a group of 'travelers' who responded with, "This is the most random f--king blessing ever!" They seemed to be the most genuinely grateful of the bunch.
I guess there was another group of three homeless/hallucinating/street people. They asked me to pray with them. I held the hand of a homeless vet with no legs, and no fingers, and put my hand on the shoulder of young traveler who was high on something, and we prayed for God's blessing on each other and those around us, until the vet starting cussing and yelling at someone who wanted some pizza...
Then I made my mistake...
I engaged one of the 'evangelists' in conversation, "Do you think there might be another way?" I was accused, ignored, preached at, and even insulted for my lack of education (I told the man that I had a hard time understanding the King James Version of the Bible, and felt that it was an improper translation to use given the context). This, of course, led to a history lesson/conspiracy theory on the men who had perverted the Bible into some of the heretical translations we have today.
I was not listened to, cared for, or encouraged. The conversation lasted too long, took too many rabit trails, and ended exactly where it began: with me convinced that these were sincere, and sincerely misguided people, who had an unquestioning aproach to what they had been inculcated into, and the 'evangelist' convinced that I was a wishy-washy Christian who either didn't understand the Bible or didn't want to follow it.
All in all the evening left me with a sense of frustration over my own lack of foresight (why, o why, did I talk to the guy? I guess I'll die!); a sense of the overwhelming love of God for His children, especially His wayward children; and a sense of the inadequacy of what I am doing.
I did have a fleeting, yet profound experience, while walking toward the concert with Jesus' Pizza, I was praying for God's help, "I don't know what I am doing, I am not capable of doing what needs to be done here God! I am incompetent and impotent, I am an inadequate choice to be a messenger of Your Grace." And then it hit me, "THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT!" It was God telling me, "It is not your job to communicate to the heart's of men, speak your words, give away My pizza, and at some point they will hear MY words."
I was able to have a couple of brief conversations about what I was doing and why. But most people were more interested in telling me why the street preachers were wrong, or what they disagreed with about Christianity, or what their own beliefs were. I did get to have a neat conversation with a group of 'travelers' who responded with, "This is the most random f--king blessing ever!" They seemed to be the most genuinely grateful of the bunch.
I guess there was another group of three homeless/hallucinating/street people. They asked me to pray with them. I held the hand of a homeless vet with no legs, and no fingers, and put my hand on the shoulder of young traveler who was high on something, and we prayed for God's blessing on each other and those around us, until the vet starting cussing and yelling at someone who wanted some pizza...
Then I made my mistake...
I engaged one of the 'evangelists' in conversation, "Do you think there might be another way?" I was accused, ignored, preached at, and even insulted for my lack of education (I told the man that I had a hard time understanding the King James Version of the Bible, and felt that it was an improper translation to use given the context). This, of course, led to a history lesson/conspiracy theory on the men who had perverted the Bible into some of the heretical translations we have today.
I was not listened to, cared for, or encouraged. The conversation lasted too long, took too many rabit trails, and ended exactly where it began: with me convinced that these were sincere, and sincerely misguided people, who had an unquestioning aproach to what they had been inculcated into, and the 'evangelist' convinced that I was a wishy-washy Christian who either didn't understand the Bible or didn't want to follow it.
All in all the evening left me with a sense of frustration over my own lack of foresight (why, o why, did I talk to the guy? I guess I'll die!); a sense of the overwhelming love of God for His children, especially His wayward children; and a sense of the inadequacy of what I am doing.
I did have a fleeting, yet profound experience, while walking toward the concert with Jesus' Pizza, I was praying for God's help, "I don't know what I am doing, I am not capable of doing what needs to be done here God! I am incompetent and impotent, I am an inadequate choice to be a messenger of Your Grace." And then it hit me, "THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT!" It was God telling me, "It is not your job to communicate to the heart's of men, speak your words, give away My pizza, and at some point they will hear MY words."
8.08.2007
Poison Pizza and the Love of God
So I decided to add my two cents to the 'Go to Hell' debacle at our local free outdoor concert. (Check the title link if you don't know what I am talking about!)
I went down to the concert, sheet-pizza in hand, and approached the angry group of fifty-plus teens who were surrounding the 'evangelists' with their signs depicting hell. I opened up the box, said "Free pizza, just take one!" and in less than a minute it was devoured! I had three or four young people ask me why I did what I did, I responded, "Because God loves you very much and He wants to be a part of your lives." I was greeted with a cautious round of agreement, and one young man who was a little more enthusiastic about it.
That seemed to be the end of the conversation ...so I thought I would bring another pizza! I called the store, walked over and brought it back. This time I had people gather around and listen before I opened the box, "I want you to know why I am doing this," I said. "Jesus loves you." One of the kids asked, "So what, did you poison it!?" Another asked, "Are you with these guys?" (Indicating the guys with the signs) At this point I think I got a little teary eyed, "No I am not with them, I don't believe those guys are speaking for Jesus. I want you to know that He cares about you very deeply."
With that I opened the box and shared another sheet-pizza, I got a few more thank you's, and one person in particular asked a few pointed questions about who I was and where I was from and then thanked me profusely.
I spent the next thirty minutes fighting back tears, overwhelmed by God's love for these people, and this city, and burdened by a deep need to do more than simply giving pizza to people...
...our world has gone to hell! If we don't do something, who will?
I will let you know how tomorrow goes, I will be going back down to the Thursday concert.
I went down to the concert, sheet-pizza in hand, and approached the angry group of fifty-plus teens who were surrounding the 'evangelists' with their signs depicting hell. I opened up the box, said "Free pizza, just take one!" and in less than a minute it was devoured! I had three or four young people ask me why I did what I did, I responded, "Because God loves you very much and He wants to be a part of your lives." I was greeted with a cautious round of agreement, and one young man who was a little more enthusiastic about it.
That seemed to be the end of the conversation ...so I thought I would bring another pizza! I called the store, walked over and brought it back. This time I had people gather around and listen before I opened the box, "I want you to know why I am doing this," I said. "Jesus loves you." One of the kids asked, "So what, did you poison it!?" Another asked, "Are you with these guys?" (Indicating the guys with the signs) At this point I think I got a little teary eyed, "No I am not with them, I don't believe those guys are speaking for Jesus. I want you to know that He cares about you very deeply."
With that I opened the box and shared another sheet-pizza, I got a few more thank you's, and one person in particular asked a few pointed questions about who I was and where I was from and then thanked me profusely.
I spent the next thirty minutes fighting back tears, overwhelmed by God's love for these people, and this city, and burdened by a deep need to do more than simply giving pizza to people...
...our world has gone to hell! If we don't do something, who will?
I will let you know how tomorrow goes, I will be going back down to the Thursday concert.
8.04.2007
SEX Part IV
This is yet another lengthy installment on the topic of sexuality, click on the title link to read the previous statements...
After having outlined sexuality in its current state, and contrasted it with natural,* healthy sexuality, I thought it would be prudent to discuss some of the causes and rationale behind the unhealthy and unnatural state of sexuality as we find it in our world.
A quick recap: healthy sexuality is designed for the enjoyment and procreation of a man and a woman who are comitted to each other so deeply, spiritually and emotionally that they could be called "one." Unhealthy sexuality then, is any sexual expression or gratification that comes from a source outside of this type of relationship. Unhealthy sexual expression would obviously include sexual contact with anyone other than a spouse, but would also include things like pornography, fantasy, voyeurism, and even flirting. In short: any activity that provides sexual gratification involving sources of gratification other than the spouse is unhealthy for the individual in question.
Unhealthy sexuality would also include sexual gratification and expression with a spouse that contradicts, conflicts with, or otherwise inhibits, the spiritual 'oneness' of the marriage relationship. It would be damaging to both husband and wife for one of them to recieve sexual gratification from the physical pain of the other (as we see in some cases), or to coerce the other into performing sexual acts in ways or at times that they are uncomfortable with, or even to withhold sex (under certain circumstances). Healthy sexuality will function as a natural and integrated aspect of the couples comitted relationship of mutual concern and submission.
Check out this article by Dallas Willard on Marriage
=============================
The above statements are obviously seen by many as 'behind the times' and probably even 'repressive, dangerous, and controlling.' This cannot be helped! So let us take a look at some of the common reasons for our current sexual state (if you can think of more, feel free to comment!)...
"This is who I am, I can't change who I am."
"This is how I define myself."
"This is how I show and receive love."
"I am not capable of controlling this."
I am certain that there are other reasons, but I think these statements get at the twin driving philosophical undercurrents that feed our culture's sexuality. We see a fundamental lack of discipline and delayed gratification (even an inability to see the benefit of discipline and delayed gratification!) coupled with a belief that an individual can and should decide for herself what is right and what is wrong.
=============================
What is moral?
We proclaim that the individual should be allowed to live in whatever way pleases them, and that this is morality. There are many who have addressed the philosophical pitfalls of relativism, I will not get far into them, other than to say, without some reference to an outside source of ethics, there is no logical basis for them. We may look at the lives of moral atheists, but when we do we are looking at fundamentally illogical people. Without some outside standard there is simply no way of deciding that one action is moral and another is not; there is no basis for calling Mother Teresa "good" and Adolf Hitler "bad." Try it yourself and post your responses here ...how would you differentiate between the two without some outside point of reference? (This, incidentally, is the conundrum that Philosophers have found themselves in for many decades, how to determine what is good, without reference to an outside source.)
Over against this stands the Biblical picture of the universe, with God's illumination of right and wrong. God is judge not in the sense, however, of a modern western magistrate determining what the law says and interpreting it accordingly, but rather in the older sense; God is a bringer of justice. God is the source of justice and righteousness, not merely a signpost pointing towards it.
In this sense, then, we can begin to understand morality as more than a set of rules laid down arbitrarily by one who has the power to enforce them, but rather as a description of what is 'good.' God does not prevent us from doing what we want, but rather points us to what is truly beautiful, joyous, powerful, true, and good (what we ultimately want!).
What is sin?
Sin is not (as is commonly thought) merely 'bad deeds.' Sin is the flawed state of the human spirit by which we are fundamentally drawn toward actions that damage ourselves, others, and the world around us. This 'bent-ness' of the human spirit then manifests itself (the bad tree bearing bad fruit) in 'bad deeds.' It is this inward bent that is sin, a desire to take good things and use them in ways for which they were never intended. A doctrine of sin, when properly understood, would not be denied by any observant person; the world is upside-down precisely because of misplaced human desire.
Sin is the perversion of human nature (we were made in the divine image) into something less than human; and no one is immune from that corruption.
...so God does not tell us to avoid certain behaviors out of a sense of cosmic 'bah-humbug' but rather out of a deep reverence and love for His children and the world that He gave them charge over, and a deep hatred toward whatever would damage those children and that world.
The trick, of course, when it comes to sexuality (not just sexuality, but all aspects of humanity are effected as well) is that what God proclaims as 'wrong' is not perceived as such by much of humanity. We say, "how could this be bad when it feels so good?" And, "how could this be wrong when it is such an integral aspect of who I am?" Because we don't look to God as the source of right-ness we doubt His assessment of what constitutes a perversion of human nature.
But an appeal to our nature is inappropriate if our nature has been corrupted; what are we to do without God if, when we look deep within ourselves, we find that we enjoy inflicting pain on others? What if the fundamental core of ourselves is selfish? Without an outside reference point to inform us 'which way is up' we are left only to follow "the needy beast within our chest."
The power to be moral!
The simple answer to those who believe sexual desire is uncontrollable are the millions of personal struggles and victories of humans of all genders, ethnicities and orientations. My sexual behavior has changed drastically over the course of my life as a student of Jesus. The same can be said of promiscuous teens, homosexual women, male prostitutes, porn stars, rape victims, child-abuse victims, adulterers, etc. There are examples of people from literally every sociological category who have experienced a marked change in sexual behavior, and the nature and scope of their sexual desire!
We have been told a lie. We do have the power to alter our sexuality. When we align our spirit with that Spirit which guides the Universe, our sexuality will be altered (along with everything else!). There is no fundamental difference between sexuality and other areas of our person, and yet we would not think of tolerating this type of reasoning from someone who claimed an inability to control their physical violence. Many cultures have demonstrated a remarkable proclivity for chastity; our problem is not that we are incapable of discipline, only that we don't want to be disciplined.
==========================
*I understand that the word natural usually means something like "the state of being of an object that is in accordance with its fundamental nature; without outside interference." We talk about the natural state of a dog in contrast with the 'tamed' state of the same animal. Some would argue that this would mean that 'natural' sexuality then is simply whatever human sexual behavior actually is, without outside cultural, or religious pressure.
However, this ignores the basic Biblical understanding of the state of the universe: God made everything fundamentally good ("very good" in fact!) but then the very heart of man became corrupt, humanity became 'inhuman.' (Romans 1 states, "Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either") The natural state of humanity is for us to live according to the way God made us, the way we currently live is just as 'unnatural' as if a stone were to fall upwards, or the sky were to turn yellow with pink polka dots!
After having outlined sexuality in its current state, and contrasted it with natural,* healthy sexuality, I thought it would be prudent to discuss some of the causes and rationale behind the unhealthy and unnatural state of sexuality as we find it in our world.
A quick recap: healthy sexuality is designed for the enjoyment and procreation of a man and a woman who are comitted to each other so deeply, spiritually and emotionally that they could be called "one." Unhealthy sexuality then, is any sexual expression or gratification that comes from a source outside of this type of relationship. Unhealthy sexual expression would obviously include sexual contact with anyone other than a spouse, but would also include things like pornography, fantasy, voyeurism, and even flirting. In short: any activity that provides sexual gratification involving sources of gratification other than the spouse is unhealthy for the individual in question.
Unhealthy sexuality would also include sexual gratification and expression with a spouse that contradicts, conflicts with, or otherwise inhibits, the spiritual 'oneness' of the marriage relationship. It would be damaging to both husband and wife for one of them to recieve sexual gratification from the physical pain of the other (as we see in some cases), or to coerce the other into performing sexual acts in ways or at times that they are uncomfortable with, or even to withhold sex (under certain circumstances). Healthy sexuality will function as a natural and integrated aspect of the couples comitted relationship of mutual concern and submission.
Check out this article by Dallas Willard on Marriage
=============================
The above statements are obviously seen by many as 'behind the times' and probably even 'repressive, dangerous, and controlling.' This cannot be helped! So let us take a look at some of the common reasons for our current sexual state (if you can think of more, feel free to comment!)...
"This is who I am, I can't change who I am."
"This is how I define myself."
"This is how I show and receive love."
"I am not capable of controlling this."
I am certain that there are other reasons, but I think these statements get at the twin driving philosophical undercurrents that feed our culture's sexuality. We see a fundamental lack of discipline and delayed gratification (even an inability to see the benefit of discipline and delayed gratification!) coupled with a belief that an individual can and should decide for herself what is right and what is wrong.
=============================
What is moral?
We proclaim that the individual should be allowed to live in whatever way pleases them, and that this is morality. There are many who have addressed the philosophical pitfalls of relativism, I will not get far into them, other than to say, without some reference to an outside source of ethics, there is no logical basis for them. We may look at the lives of moral atheists, but when we do we are looking at fundamentally illogical people. Without some outside standard there is simply no way of deciding that one action is moral and another is not; there is no basis for calling Mother Teresa "good" and Adolf Hitler "bad." Try it yourself and post your responses here ...how would you differentiate between the two without some outside point of reference? (This, incidentally, is the conundrum that Philosophers have found themselves in for many decades, how to determine what is good, without reference to an outside source.)
Over against this stands the Biblical picture of the universe, with God's illumination of right and wrong. God is judge not in the sense, however, of a modern western magistrate determining what the law says and interpreting it accordingly, but rather in the older sense; God is a bringer of justice. God is the source of justice and righteousness, not merely a signpost pointing towards it.
In this sense, then, we can begin to understand morality as more than a set of rules laid down arbitrarily by one who has the power to enforce them, but rather as a description of what is 'good.' God does not prevent us from doing what we want, but rather points us to what is truly beautiful, joyous, powerful, true, and good (what we ultimately want!).
What is sin?
Sin is not (as is commonly thought) merely 'bad deeds.' Sin is the flawed state of the human spirit by which we are fundamentally drawn toward actions that damage ourselves, others, and the world around us. This 'bent-ness' of the human spirit then manifests itself (the bad tree bearing bad fruit) in 'bad deeds.' It is this inward bent that is sin, a desire to take good things and use them in ways for which they were never intended. A doctrine of sin, when properly understood, would not be denied by any observant person; the world is upside-down precisely because of misplaced human desire.
Sin is the perversion of human nature (we were made in the divine image) into something less than human; and no one is immune from that corruption.
...so God does not tell us to avoid certain behaviors out of a sense of cosmic 'bah-humbug' but rather out of a deep reverence and love for His children and the world that He gave them charge over, and a deep hatred toward whatever would damage those children and that world.
The trick, of course, when it comes to sexuality (not just sexuality, but all aspects of humanity are effected as well) is that what God proclaims as 'wrong' is not perceived as such by much of humanity. We say, "how could this be bad when it feels so good?" And, "how could this be wrong when it is such an integral aspect of who I am?" Because we don't look to God as the source of right-ness we doubt His assessment of what constitutes a perversion of human nature.
But an appeal to our nature is inappropriate if our nature has been corrupted; what are we to do without God if, when we look deep within ourselves, we find that we enjoy inflicting pain on others? What if the fundamental core of ourselves is selfish? Without an outside reference point to inform us 'which way is up' we are left only to follow "the needy beast within our chest."
The power to be moral!
The simple answer to those who believe sexual desire is uncontrollable are the millions of personal struggles and victories of humans of all genders, ethnicities and orientations. My sexual behavior has changed drastically over the course of my life as a student of Jesus. The same can be said of promiscuous teens, homosexual women, male prostitutes, porn stars, rape victims, child-abuse victims, adulterers, etc. There are examples of people from literally every sociological category who have experienced a marked change in sexual behavior, and the nature and scope of their sexual desire!
We have been told a lie. We do have the power to alter our sexuality. When we align our spirit with that Spirit which guides the Universe, our sexuality will be altered (along with everything else!). There is no fundamental difference between sexuality and other areas of our person, and yet we would not think of tolerating this type of reasoning from someone who claimed an inability to control their physical violence. Many cultures have demonstrated a remarkable proclivity for chastity; our problem is not that we are incapable of discipline, only that we don't want to be disciplined.
==========================
*I understand that the word natural usually means something like "the state of being of an object that is in accordance with its fundamental nature; without outside interference." We talk about the natural state of a dog in contrast with the 'tamed' state of the same animal. Some would argue that this would mean that 'natural' sexuality then is simply whatever human sexual behavior actually is, without outside cultural, or religious pressure.
However, this ignores the basic Biblical understanding of the state of the universe: God made everything fundamentally good ("very good" in fact!) but then the very heart of man became corrupt, humanity became 'inhuman.' (Romans 1 states, "Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either") The natural state of humanity is for us to live according to the way God made us, the way we currently live is just as 'unnatural' as if a stone were to fall upwards, or the sky were to turn yellow with pink polka dots!
8.03.2007
Quote
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a
man is wise by his questions.”
man is wise by his questions.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)