The Supreme Court is back in the news again, after releasing its newest judgments regarding courts and Ten Commandments and Christmas scenery. And the evangelical community responds with its predictable bellyache as though it were waiting just offstage reading a copy of the script. As I said, it is a respondent bellyache to a situation way out of control rather than taking some initiative to induce change and make the situation right.
After some thought on this particular situation it has occurred to me that we have the proverbial pendulum at swing. If we take this image to be a fixed weight hung so that it can swing freely back and forth (say, a clock pendulum which swings anywhere between the 9 and the 3), then we can envisage how trends and ideology moves from one extreme to another. This is largely based upon action and reaction. What if the points between 3 and 9 were submerged, as though it were underwater? This would mean that both extremes were rather shallow and that the correct balance of both could be the deepest option.
This is not true in all things, mind you, but it can be a very important axiom to have in mind. Evangelicalism has popularized itself into an extreme of Christianity (mostly refered to as 'Christianize') which is very shallow, displaying its intellectual depth in various bumper stickers and abounding "self-help" books (RABBIT TRAIL: why self-help and not Spirit's guidance?). One of the effects of this pop-Christianity is that it has disengaged the message of Christ from the arena of public ideas. And then it becomes easier for churches to gripe about the situation than working to offer alternative, biblically based solutions.
However, if we swing the pendulum to the other extreme we find an overly fundamentalist view that reads Scripture only as a condescending and judgmental. This position seems only to view the biblical text as a list of rules to be followed and spends little time reaching society on its own level - in terms it can understand. Our culture often refuses to see this situation as valid (can we blame them?), even though many of the positions can be viewed as biblically accurate in its foundation.
Where is the pendulum right now. I suppose it depends on who you are; it is quite subjective. While there are pockets of both extremes in our own evangelicalism today, most persons fall under the easy (lazy?) position of popular Christianity, with more CD liner notes memorized than Bible verses and more reading devoted to Christian dating than how we can be the most effective salt and light as possible.
Let the pendulum swing when it must and rest when it can. That might be a :micverb (I think I'll send it to clave on a bumper sticker).
Tuesday, June 28
Monday, June 20
but I don't know how to swim
"When we talk of 'finding God's will' we generally want divine guidance on specific choices, but it should be noted that this specific term is never used after the Holy Spirit came upon the church at Pentecost. The apostles, upon whom the church is founded, did not teach that we are to seek God's will in this way. Instead, the New Testament offers us a program of the Father's guidance that is based upon having a close relationship with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit."*
This quotation is taken from a challenging book which was produced ten years ago but has largely been unnoticed by evangelicalism as a whole. Waltke's premise is obvious from reading his comments, and it points out the tendency of today's Christians who want little more than quick answers to any and all of their problems. His argument is quite good: this type of activity is closer to pagan divination than Spirit-driven lifestyle.
Why this matters is that it explains very much how our spirituality at the turn of the century has become so shallow and self-serving that it cannot see beyond our immediate need/wants (most of which are quite insignificant in view of worldwide need and in light of eternity - i.e., praying for parking spaces). We refer to this as knowing God's will for our lives, but in reality we are just looking for pat answers to common headaches.
What we are called to is a realationship with the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit which guides and directs our lives. It is not for us to appease the Spirit so that we might have a "get out of jail free" card or some cosmic umbrella to keep out the rain, but a relationship that joins the Lord of Creation at his table of fellowship because we have been invited to join him and find our rest and completeness. And yet we take such an invitation for granted and slap another bumper sticker on our cars in order to find that preordained parking place.
So instead of overspiritualizing everyday events and reading into random events of life that happen to just about everyone and 'decide' that it is God's will at work, perhaps we ought to do the unthinkable: wait upon the Lord and renew our strength that we may know his will through the Spirit's constant work within us. Jesus never asked for God's will, for it flowed through him constantly as did the Holy Spirit which facilitated his communion with the Father. And since he is our paradigm for faith, we might find a more constant and deeper understanding of God's will by having his Spirit more constantly and deeper through us.
For this to happen, we will need to want to go deeper. . .
*Bruce K. Waltke, Finding the Will of God: A Pagan Notion? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 10-11.
This quotation is taken from a challenging book which was produced ten years ago but has largely been unnoticed by evangelicalism as a whole. Waltke's premise is obvious from reading his comments, and it points out the tendency of today's Christians who want little more than quick answers to any and all of their problems. His argument is quite good: this type of activity is closer to pagan divination than Spirit-driven lifestyle.
Why this matters is that it explains very much how our spirituality at the turn of the century has become so shallow and self-serving that it cannot see beyond our immediate need/wants (most of which are quite insignificant in view of worldwide need and in light of eternity - i.e., praying for parking spaces). We refer to this as knowing God's will for our lives, but in reality we are just looking for pat answers to common headaches.
What we are called to is a realationship with the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit which guides and directs our lives. It is not for us to appease the Spirit so that we might have a "get out of jail free" card or some cosmic umbrella to keep out the rain, but a relationship that joins the Lord of Creation at his table of fellowship because we have been invited to join him and find our rest and completeness. And yet we take such an invitation for granted and slap another bumper sticker on our cars in order to find that preordained parking place.
So instead of overspiritualizing everyday events and reading into random events of life that happen to just about everyone and 'decide' that it is God's will at work, perhaps we ought to do the unthinkable: wait upon the Lord and renew our strength that we may know his will through the Spirit's constant work within us. Jesus never asked for God's will, for it flowed through him constantly as did the Holy Spirit which facilitated his communion with the Father. And since he is our paradigm for faith, we might find a more constant and deeper understanding of God's will by having his Spirit more constantly and deeper through us.
For this to happen, we will need to want to go deeper. . .
*Bruce K. Waltke, Finding the Will of God: A Pagan Notion? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 10-11.
Thursday, June 16
somebody take a stand. . .now go away!
This particular post is going to be more of a rant than I've ever attempted on this site before. For quite a while I have been watching the Christian community as it continually whines and cries over the fact that nobody ever takes a real stand in the public forum for the ideals and ways of the church. In the past few years this sentiment has revolved around our president, who categorizes himself as a believer but is forced to constantly defend himself - mostly from other Christians.
It never ceases to amaze me how evangelicals keep calling for lambs that roar (quite the overused metaphor), and then running back to the house to find the shotgun at the first hint of disagreement. I have to say that this is not the picture of grace that one envisages from all of the biblical talk about community. Nor does it sound like the attitude of commitment and edification that comes from those who are true and devoted followers of Jesus.
One of the more ongoing favorites for personal attacks is Dr. James Dobson (founder of Focus on the Family). And I just caught another "theo-"blog kicking up some dirt in his direction. Although this individiual has provided such an incredible impact for the ethics and morals of the kingdom of God, he is frequently attacked by churchgoers (a rather ambiguous term) who couldn't theologize their way out of a wet paper sack. Yet they feel the need to take someone who has stepped out to make a difference and fire shots at his back.
Not that it has made much of a difference. For those who are about the Father's business will not be taken down, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven and they work through the empowerment of the Spirit. Of all of the attacks, supposed exposes, insider trashing and constant annoying the work of the kingdom moves forward through such incredible individuals.
There are lessons to be learned:
1) to take out a person of faith is to take out the Spirit at work within them (which is quite impossible)
2) to be a part of a community demands commitment and a call to edify
Are we commited?
This might be something along the lines of our identity being wrapped up in our love for each other or something like that. . .
It never ceases to amaze me how evangelicals keep calling for lambs that roar (quite the overused metaphor), and then running back to the house to find the shotgun at the first hint of disagreement. I have to say that this is not the picture of grace that one envisages from all of the biblical talk about community. Nor does it sound like the attitude of commitment and edification that comes from those who are true and devoted followers of Jesus.
One of the more ongoing favorites for personal attacks is Dr. James Dobson (founder of Focus on the Family). And I just caught another "theo-"blog kicking up some dirt in his direction. Although this individiual has provided such an incredible impact for the ethics and morals of the kingdom of God, he is frequently attacked by churchgoers (a rather ambiguous term) who couldn't theologize their way out of a wet paper sack. Yet they feel the need to take someone who has stepped out to make a difference and fire shots at his back.
Not that it has made much of a difference. For those who are about the Father's business will not be taken down, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven and they work through the empowerment of the Spirit. Of all of the attacks, supposed exposes, insider trashing and constant annoying the work of the kingdom moves forward through such incredible individuals.
There are lessons to be learned:
1) to take out a person of faith is to take out the Spirit at work within them (which is quite impossible)
2) to be a part of a community demands commitment and a call to edify
Are we commited?
This might be something along the lines of our identity being wrapped up in our love for each other or something like that. . .
Monday, June 13
faking it
I think the biggest fear I have for myself is that I will lose this fullness of the Spirit out of which authentic ministry flows. People will not at first notice that I am ministering in the flesh. I think I have enough knowledge, experience, and abilities that I would be able to fool people for a considerable amount of time. Even if they noticed, they probably would not mention it. But in terms of effectiveness in teh agenda of the kingdom, I would be castaway, disqualified from the service that meets God's approval. It is a comfort to know that Paul also lived with that fear. He said, 'But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified' (1 Corinthians 9:27).*
This amazingly open and honest quotation is taken from perhaps the greatest book on Christian ministry and leadership this current generation has seen. And since I never read books that systematize leadership, ministry or relationship, then it is the best book on any of these subjects that I have ever read. Working through this book for the second time, this particular quote really stood out in a chilling way. It raises a couple of disturbing questions that we as Christians living in the early 21st century must face head-on.
What a shame that we spend so much time categorizing and labelling our different doctrinal positions regarding the experience of the Holy Spirit while never addressing the need for each believer to act through the power of the Spirit. Notice here that I am not suggesting that we do not seek to understand the Spirit - we should seek so that we might find. I am advocating that after all of our debates, challenges, doctrinal statements, creeds, books and sermons that we actually seek to experience the Holy Spirit as the empowering force which drives all believers onward.
There are, I believe, two unsettling questions to ponder that flow out of Fernando's discussion:
1) Would my life and ministry be unchanged if the Spirit were not a part of it?
2) Would anyone notice?
*Ajith Fernando, Jesus Driven Ministry (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002), 36.
This amazingly open and honest quotation is taken from perhaps the greatest book on Christian ministry and leadership this current generation has seen. And since I never read books that systematize leadership, ministry or relationship, then it is the best book on any of these subjects that I have ever read. Working through this book for the second time, this particular quote really stood out in a chilling way. It raises a couple of disturbing questions that we as Christians living in the early 21st century must face head-on.
What a shame that we spend so much time categorizing and labelling our different doctrinal positions regarding the experience of the Holy Spirit while never addressing the need for each believer to act through the power of the Spirit. Notice here that I am not suggesting that we do not seek to understand the Spirit - we should seek so that we might find. I am advocating that after all of our debates, challenges, doctrinal statements, creeds, books and sermons that we actually seek to experience the Holy Spirit as the empowering force which drives all believers onward.
There are, I believe, two unsettling questions to ponder that flow out of Fernando's discussion:
1) Would my life and ministry be unchanged if the Spirit were not a part of it?
2) Would anyone notice?
*Ajith Fernando, Jesus Driven Ministry (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002), 36.
Thursday, June 9
blinded by the dark
[SPOILER!! - This blog discusses the transformation of Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader. If you did not know that Anakin is Vader, then do not continue reading this post.]
Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith started its first week with such a bang that many people thought it to be on its way to cruising into the spot of highest grossing film ever made. Then Madagascar was released the next week and caused for a lot of retractions. Having seen it recently I can verify that it is a good flick, although their various attempts at suspense are difficult to achieve since most everyone has already seen Star Wars: A New Hope (the original 1977 movie). Something that I've been waiting for is Anakin's morph into Darth Vader (along with Yoda - the coolest character in the series. . .and really, Yoda really spiked in popularity with the lightsaber scene in Episode II).
What struck me as odd in this latest installment is how Anakin is being persuaded to join "the dark side" of the force. For those who have been under a rock for the past thirty or so years, the force is a Hindu/New Agey rip-off that writer/director George Lucas put into these movies as an energy that binds all things (living/dead) together. It's totally bogus, but most sensible people just look beyond it in order to see some cool outer space effects. This force has a good side and a dark side, one which empowers and one which corrupts and destroys. The myth in all of this is that one can become more powerful by going to the dark side and the lure of power has drawn many down that path.
Anakin is definitely dealing with issues of power and responsibility in this movie. He is being lured to the dark side and struggles to make the right choices. Initially I was a bit confused about the attractiveness of the dark side. From a marketing standpoint it couldn't have a worse name. "The dark side." If they were really serious about getting folks to sign up for this, perhaps they would use more ambiguous titles. . .the cool side of the force; the deeper side of the force; the new black. . .
It seemed absurd to me that this was going on, perhaps because I have learned that evil does not usually persuade us by presenting itself as evil. I kept thinking about how Satan "masquerades as an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14) and manipulates our perception of right and wrong. This outlook made the movie hard for me to accept. However, it later came to me that there was a more intrinsic message in the characterization of young Skywalker. For him to be drawn in by an evil that did not seek to hide itself meant that he had already come to struggle with his own reality. . .just like so many in our own culture. To turn this movie outward is to see something wrong within ourselves.
Our own society has come to struggle with right and wrong. The moral and ethical relativism that plagues our culture today means that we often choose evil even when it is not hiding itself. Labelled as "rebellion" or "experimentation" we allow so many of our younger generations to toy with evil, taking away its edge and making it more familiar. Let's face it. . .if we do not understand dark as an ethical descriptor, then we will have no problem exploring the dark side. But if we can regain the standards of right and wrong; light and dark; truth and lies. . .moral relativsts beware!
mmmmm, truth shall you know - set you free, it will.
Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith started its first week with such a bang that many people thought it to be on its way to cruising into the spot of highest grossing film ever made. Then Madagascar was released the next week and caused for a lot of retractions. Having seen it recently I can verify that it is a good flick, although their various attempts at suspense are difficult to achieve since most everyone has already seen Star Wars: A New Hope (the original 1977 movie). Something that I've been waiting for is Anakin's morph into Darth Vader (along with Yoda - the coolest character in the series. . .and really, Yoda really spiked in popularity with the lightsaber scene in Episode II).
What struck me as odd in this latest installment is how Anakin is being persuaded to join "the dark side" of the force. For those who have been under a rock for the past thirty or so years, the force is a Hindu/New Agey rip-off that writer/director George Lucas put into these movies as an energy that binds all things (living/dead) together. It's totally bogus, but most sensible people just look beyond it in order to see some cool outer space effects. This force has a good side and a dark side, one which empowers and one which corrupts and destroys. The myth in all of this is that one can become more powerful by going to the dark side and the lure of power has drawn many down that path.
Anakin is definitely dealing with issues of power and responsibility in this movie. He is being lured to the dark side and struggles to make the right choices. Initially I was a bit confused about the attractiveness of the dark side. From a marketing standpoint it couldn't have a worse name. "The dark side." If they were really serious about getting folks to sign up for this, perhaps they would use more ambiguous titles. . .the cool side of the force; the deeper side of the force; the new black. . .
It seemed absurd to me that this was going on, perhaps because I have learned that evil does not usually persuade us by presenting itself as evil. I kept thinking about how Satan "masquerades as an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14) and manipulates our perception of right and wrong. This outlook made the movie hard for me to accept. However, it later came to me that there was a more intrinsic message in the characterization of young Skywalker. For him to be drawn in by an evil that did not seek to hide itself meant that he had already come to struggle with his own reality. . .just like so many in our own culture. To turn this movie outward is to see something wrong within ourselves.
Our own society has come to struggle with right and wrong. The moral and ethical relativism that plagues our culture today means that we often choose evil even when it is not hiding itself. Labelled as "rebellion" or "experimentation" we allow so many of our younger generations to toy with evil, taking away its edge and making it more familiar. Let's face it. . .if we do not understand dark as an ethical descriptor, then we will have no problem exploring the dark side. But if we can regain the standards of right and wrong; light and dark; truth and lies. . .moral relativsts beware!
mmmmm, truth shall you know - set you free, it will.
Tuesday, June 7
a big inning
"The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
Mark 1:1
So I was having an ice cream with hipperken yesterday and we were talking about the implications of an existential understanding of the variegated nomism which characterized the salvific expectations surrounding second temple Judaism as is depicted through the narrative dynamics of the Pauline corpus within the first century. He had made some pretty good points, but really caught my attention with some comments on the process of living life on this side of eternity. For the sake of berevity, I'll save the comments on the former topic and focus our attention on the latter.
It is very apparent that the New Testament is (from start to finish; top to bottom; front to back. . .) essentially a balance. The entire notion of a new covenant is built upon what biblical scholar George Ladd once called an "inaugurated eschatology." Even though this phrase can astound your friends and family with its percieved percipience, it is a very simple descriptor which means "the beginning of the end." This inaugurated eschatology is found in the coming of the kingdom. As Christians we believe that the kingdom of God has arrived (coming with and through Jesus) but also recognize that the kingdom of God has not come in its fullness, which will happen at the second coming of Christ.
The point that stuck with me through the conversation with hipperken is statement regarding the importance of this present age. If the kingdom is in fact already present among us (through the church), then it is of vital importance that we work to see this kingdom realized (. . .as it is in heaven). I could not agree more. In fact I believe there are far too many Christians who write-off this world as something temporary and (therefore) insignificant. Not if we are to believe that the advent of Jesus truly means something. We have a great work to do and this world is not just something we endure until we move on. . .it is a place where ministry and worship and glorification and spiritual warfare happens.
The beginning of the gospel is not just some clever way to start an adult biography. Mark intentionally places this phrase at the outset of his work to remind us that what Jesus came to do only started something that cannot be stopped. This really seems to be a title of what follows. . ."Interpreting 1:1 as the title of the book, therefore, helps make sense of the abrupt ending of 16:8 - the beginning of the good news is over on Easter morning; after that "the good news of Jesus" will continue through the life of the church."
The life and work of Jesus did make for a big inning, but it wasn't the ninth.
*Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 146.
Mark 1:1
So I was having an ice cream with hipperken yesterday and we were talking about the implications of an existential understanding of the variegated nomism which characterized the salvific expectations surrounding second temple Judaism as is depicted through the narrative dynamics of the Pauline corpus within the first century. He had made some pretty good points, but really caught my attention with some comments on the process of living life on this side of eternity. For the sake of berevity, I'll save the comments on the former topic and focus our attention on the latter.
It is very apparent that the New Testament is (from start to finish; top to bottom; front to back. . .) essentially a balance. The entire notion of a new covenant is built upon what biblical scholar George Ladd once called an "inaugurated eschatology." Even though this phrase can astound your friends and family with its percieved percipience, it is a very simple descriptor which means "the beginning of the end." This inaugurated eschatology is found in the coming of the kingdom. As Christians we believe that the kingdom of God has arrived (coming with and through Jesus) but also recognize that the kingdom of God has not come in its fullness, which will happen at the second coming of Christ.
The point that stuck with me through the conversation with hipperken is statement regarding the importance of this present age. If the kingdom is in fact already present among us (through the church), then it is of vital importance that we work to see this kingdom realized (. . .as it is in heaven). I could not agree more. In fact I believe there are far too many Christians who write-off this world as something temporary and (therefore) insignificant. Not if we are to believe that the advent of Jesus truly means something. We have a great work to do and this world is not just something we endure until we move on. . .it is a place where ministry and worship and glorification and spiritual warfare happens.
The beginning of the gospel is not just some clever way to start an adult biography. Mark intentionally places this phrase at the outset of his work to remind us that what Jesus came to do only started something that cannot be stopped. This really seems to be a title of what follows. . ."Interpreting 1:1 as the title of the book, therefore, helps make sense of the abrupt ending of 16:8 - the beginning of the good news is over on Easter morning; after that "the good news of Jesus" will continue through the life of the church."
The life and work of Jesus did make for a big inning, but it wasn't the ninth.
*Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 146.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)