In the seldom referenced sequel to "Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness" Abraham "fell facedown and laughed to himself, 'will a son really be born to me in my old age?" His doubt did not negate the promise of God.
David said, "My God my God whay have you forsaken me?/Why are you so far from saving me,/so far from the words of my groaning?/Oh my God I cry out by day and you do not answer." Then he goes on to affirm the faithfulness of God. And his doubt did not negate the promise of God.
Zechariah doubted, and was mute...and yet the promise of God was not negated--his son was born.
His son John said "Look the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Then later, to the same person said "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else." The reply to his doubt? Not condemnation, but encouragement. "Go back and report to John what you hear and see; the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor."
There are a lot of people who doubt, a lot of people in pain, a lot of people who don't always know what to think. Like me. God seems far away sometimes, or a lot of the time, or what sometimes seems like all the time. Theology doesn't always make sense--as nice as that would be...God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. Faith is confusing--God is confusing--Life is confusing.
So does that mean that you can believe anything about God? That God is whatever I believe him to be? I don't think so.
God says, "If you seek me you will find me." God is, so all who seek God will find the same God.
I just seems to me that perhaps Doubt is something that is both impossible to escape, and not incompatible with a life of Faith.
Showing posts with label faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label faith. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Sunday, November 02, 2008
on politics and voting
I would have written this sooner, but I had four tests this week, and we had dinner engagements every single night, so I didn't have time. One thing is true, I didn't intend any judgement. I guess I'm really trying to ask a question rather than tell you you're wrong.
I recognize that voting is perhaps the most sacred part of the cult of the American faith. It is something that we have been taught to value highly. It is something that has been exalted so much it is one of the unquestionables. One of the basic tenets of the American religion is that voting is in and of itself a good thing. If you don't believe me ask yourself how many times you've heard (or said) "It doesn't matter who you vote for, but vote for someone."
So I don't mean to sacrifice the sacred cow, but I want to ask the questions I have that nobody else seems to be asking.
So don't feel judged because I don't have the faintest idea what I'm talking about.
But I do want to rephrase the question so here goes...
1a. If Christ didn't seize political power when he had the chance, then I shouldn't either.
1b. Christ didn't seize political power
So 1c. Neither should I
2a. I should not do anything that involves seizing political power.
2b. To vote is to seize political power
so 3c. I should not vote.
I recognize that there are probably some pretty glaring logical flaws in this argument. Here's my issue...I don't think there are many people who would really try to refute any of the premises, except perhaps 2b. To that objection I can only say that the political power pie may be divided up into really little pieces, but as small as they are, they're still slices of political power and when we vote we take our piece. But here's how the conversation always seems to go:
"...So, you shouldn't seize political power."
"Yes, you're right, but I think that if you can do good and influence the way the government works, (or spends money, or outlaws abortion, or ends war, or whatever)..."
Or alternatively..."yes you're right, but I think that if you pray about who you're going to vote for..."
That's fine if you think that, but personally I have a problem with both of those responses. I am very skeptical about the ability of the government to do good, and about the ability of voters to really influence the way the government works. Rule of the majority tends to be oppressive to the marginalized and beneficial to the elite. But that's a whole other issue.
As far as the second goes I would say that Christ prayed a lot, and he could have become the emperor of Rome and done a lot of good things, but he chose not to. He chose instead to minister to the marginalized of society and let the government do its thing without him.
So I recognize that pretty much everyone who reads this will have an instant reflex rejection. I do, but I'm not sure why. So my question is if it is right to vote...why is it right to vote? and how is this line of reasoning wrong?
I guess ultimately my problem with voting is this: The act of voting itself is an attempt to impose my will on other people. And I'm just not down with that. Trust me, I don't judge you for attempting to impose your will on me. I recognize it as the way of things that some people will rule others, and the government will steal from me every chance it gets. That's life, but I don't want to be one of the rulers.
I recognize that voting is perhaps the most sacred part of the cult of the American faith. It is something that we have been taught to value highly. It is something that has been exalted so much it is one of the unquestionables. One of the basic tenets of the American religion is that voting is in and of itself a good thing. If you don't believe me ask yourself how many times you've heard (or said) "It doesn't matter who you vote for, but vote for someone."
So I don't mean to sacrifice the sacred cow, but I want to ask the questions I have that nobody else seems to be asking.
So don't feel judged because I don't have the faintest idea what I'm talking about.
But I do want to rephrase the question so here goes...
1a. If Christ didn't seize political power when he had the chance, then I shouldn't either.
1b. Christ didn't seize political power
So 1c. Neither should I
2a. I should not do anything that involves seizing political power.
2b. To vote is to seize political power
so 3c. I should not vote.
I recognize that there are probably some pretty glaring logical flaws in this argument. Here's my issue...I don't think there are many people who would really try to refute any of the premises, except perhaps 2b. To that objection I can only say that the political power pie may be divided up into really little pieces, but as small as they are, they're still slices of political power and when we vote we take our piece. But here's how the conversation always seems to go:
"...So, you shouldn't seize political power."
"Yes, you're right, but I think that if you can do good and influence the way the government works, (or spends money, or outlaws abortion, or ends war, or whatever)..."
Or alternatively..."yes you're right, but I think that if you pray about who you're going to vote for..."
That's fine if you think that, but personally I have a problem with both of those responses. I am very skeptical about the ability of the government to do good, and about the ability of voters to really influence the way the government works. Rule of the majority tends to be oppressive to the marginalized and beneficial to the elite. But that's a whole other issue.
As far as the second goes I would say that Christ prayed a lot, and he could have become the emperor of Rome and done a lot of good things, but he chose not to. He chose instead to minister to the marginalized of society and let the government do its thing without him.
So I recognize that pretty much everyone who reads this will have an instant reflex rejection. I do, but I'm not sure why. So my question is if it is right to vote...why is it right to vote? and how is this line of reasoning wrong?
I guess ultimately my problem with voting is this: The act of voting itself is an attempt to impose my will on other people. And I'm just not down with that. Trust me, I don't judge you for attempting to impose your will on me. I recognize it as the way of things that some people will rule others, and the government will steal from me every chance it gets. That's life, but I don't want to be one of the rulers.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
On loss and faith
As we enter a period of transition and deep loss, Adrienne and I are facing a time of trial and pain. Over the last two years we have become integrated into a community in Tucson. We have come to love and be loved by our friends there. We have been embraced by the community at the Village and we have immersed ourselves in it.
So now as we prepare for the transition to Michigan we face a time of pain and loss. We will grieve deeply and mourn the loss of the community we have here. It iis this more than anything else that makes me want to stay in Tucson. But it is very tempting for other reasons as well. It would be easy to stay another year, apply again and quite possibly get in. We wouldn't face upheaval and loss, we wouldn't face insecurity of instability. Our lives would not be tossed again into the whirlwind thaT is transition.
Yet God has called us to this. Both Adrienne and I have felt God leading us in this direction over the last few months and weeks. It would be so easy to say that we are going to stay. It is tempting. I would love to be able to stay in Tucson. I love it here. It would require no sacrifice.
So what happens to our faith when God asks something of us that is difficult or painful or that we just plain old don't want to do? How do we summon up the reserves of obedience neccessary to do what God asks, not kicking and screaming, but joyful and obedient?
So now as we prepare for the transition to Michigan we face a time of pain and loss. We will grieve deeply and mourn the loss of the community we have here. It iis this more than anything else that makes me want to stay in Tucson. But it is very tempting for other reasons as well. It would be easy to stay another year, apply again and quite possibly get in. We wouldn't face upheaval and loss, we wouldn't face insecurity of instability. Our lives would not be tossed again into the whirlwind thaT is transition.
Yet God has called us to this. Both Adrienne and I have felt God leading us in this direction over the last few months and weeks. It would be so easy to say that we are going to stay. It is tempting. I would love to be able to stay in Tucson. I love it here. It would require no sacrifice.
So what happens to our faith when God asks something of us that is difficult or painful or that we just plain old don't want to do? How do we summon up the reserves of obedience neccessary to do what God asks, not kicking and screaming, but joyful and obedient?
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
A house divided will not stand
The church is the body of Christ. If this is true, can we segregate it into distinct units and hope to achieve growth? It seems that the answer should be no, so why do we do it? If you don't believe we do look around. Step into many churches and ask yourself if the youth are connected to the body. Do highschool and college ministries give the same message that the rest hear? Are they connected to the rest of the church? How many only attend youth programs and eschew the general gathering? How many organizations are there dedicted to a particular age group? Are they connecting the youth of the church into the body through the bond of relationship?
A phenomenon has swept the church in the past few decades. Around the age of twenty a suprisingly large number of people stop going to church. Why? Why does the church seem powerless to hold them? What pulls them away? Is it a lack of training? Are we not bringing up our children in the way they should go? How are we failing the youth of the church? We have sought to dam the breach with programs designed to appeal to youth. And yet the hole tears itself wider. Why?
I was a part of a church for several years that for some reason didn't lose its youth to this phenomenon. They continued to play a vibrant role in the church through highschool, college, and beyond. Contrary to popular reason there were no youth programs to speak of. The high school had its own Sunday school, and occasionally met on Saturday nights, but that was it. In fact, young people were drawn into this church. Many of their families did not attend any church. Why? What was the source of its success? Where is a large part of the church failing?
A Hypothesis
What is the purpose of the church? Why don't the followers of Christ each have a solitary direct line to God? What function does the church serve? Community. The church is to be an example of what God intended for human beings--to show what true relationship in community can look like. It provides a support system for Christians that allows them to face reality--we live in a broken world. We live with an emptiness that cannot be completely fulfilled in this life. We sin and yet are declared holy in the eyes of God. These are tough issues to grapple withand it is only through community that we can do so. The church also helps us to grow spiritually as others speak into our lives.
So what happens when we segregate the church into distinct age groups? This denies the reality of the fullness of the community of God and cuts out a large part of the community. This denies the unescapeable reality that relationships formed accross age lines are not only possible, but essential to the vibrancy of the church. This denies that Older Christians carry a treasure trove of wisdom and experience that can and should be mined by the youth in the church and segregates the two so they don't interact.
Can relationships form across age lines? Yes. We pander to popular culture when we deny this. The church has a responsibility to encourage relationship. This is the tie that binds us to the church, gives us strength when we falter, and makes it possible for us to live as God's children in a fallen world. God has given us the church as a means of butressing our faith, how can we deny this?
The model of the church I spoke of was that of a family. About a third of the church was from one large extended family. But the astonishing thing about this church was its openness. They had taken the kind of relationship you expect in a family and extended it to everyone who walked in the church. Church was not an event, but a way of life. They ate together, spent time with each other, and they extended to bond of family to everyone who came. The youth continued to take an interest in the church because they had the bond of relationship with everyone in the church. It was their life, their support system and the place they came to speak and to listen.
A phenomenon has swept the church in the past few decades. Around the age of twenty a suprisingly large number of people stop going to church. Why? Why does the church seem powerless to hold them? What pulls them away? Is it a lack of training? Are we not bringing up our children in the way they should go? How are we failing the youth of the church? We have sought to dam the breach with programs designed to appeal to youth. And yet the hole tears itself wider. Why?
I was a part of a church for several years that for some reason didn't lose its youth to this phenomenon. They continued to play a vibrant role in the church through highschool, college, and beyond. Contrary to popular reason there were no youth programs to speak of. The high school had its own Sunday school, and occasionally met on Saturday nights, but that was it. In fact, young people were drawn into this church. Many of their families did not attend any church. Why? What was the source of its success? Where is a large part of the church failing?
A Hypothesis
What is the purpose of the church? Why don't the followers of Christ each have a solitary direct line to God? What function does the church serve? Community. The church is to be an example of what God intended for human beings--to show what true relationship in community can look like. It provides a support system for Christians that allows them to face reality--we live in a broken world. We live with an emptiness that cannot be completely fulfilled in this life. We sin and yet are declared holy in the eyes of God. These are tough issues to grapple withand it is only through community that we can do so. The church also helps us to grow spiritually as others speak into our lives.
So what happens when we segregate the church into distinct age groups? This denies the reality of the fullness of the community of God and cuts out a large part of the community. This denies the unescapeable reality that relationships formed accross age lines are not only possible, but essential to the vibrancy of the church. This denies that Older Christians carry a treasure trove of wisdom and experience that can and should be mined by the youth in the church and segregates the two so they don't interact.
Can relationships form across age lines? Yes. We pander to popular culture when we deny this. The church has a responsibility to encourage relationship. This is the tie that binds us to the church, gives us strength when we falter, and makes it possible for us to live as God's children in a fallen world. God has given us the church as a means of butressing our faith, how can we deny this?
The model of the church I spoke of was that of a family. About a third of the church was from one large extended family. But the astonishing thing about this church was its openness. They had taken the kind of relationship you expect in a family and extended it to everyone who walked in the church. Church was not an event, but a way of life. They ate together, spent time with each other, and they extended to bond of family to everyone who came. The youth continued to take an interest in the church because they had the bond of relationship with everyone in the church. It was their life, their support system and the place they came to speak and to listen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
