A comment made to me the other day started me thinking. It was just an off-hand comment: "Was Jesus omniscient?" But it was asked in such a way as to imply that this is a real issue that deserves discussion. So I will discuss it, not because I think it deserves a hearing but because I believe it deserves a refutatation.
My first issue with this is purely scriptural. I think that it should be clear to us that Jesus was God. Take John 1:1-18. Here John lays out the foundation for the story he is about to tell. In this preface he describes the characteristics of Jesus in unambiguous terms. He is God, come to make God known to man. In addition, Jesus displayed his omniscience at various times throughout his ministy...think of his knowledge of the samaritan women or of Lazarus' death, or of Nathaniel standing under the fig tree. I think that it is clear that though Jesus didn't always put his omniscience on a pedestal, it was there.
My second issue is on mainly intellectual grounds. Many have tried to claim that there are mistakes in Jesus' teaching that show that he was limited by the ideas of his time. This casts all of his teaching under a shadow of unreliability. If he wasn't omniscient can we trust any of his teaching?
Finally, Jesus claimed to be God. One of the characteristics of God is omniscience. If we deny him that, we make him out to be a liar.
Part of the beauty of Christianity for me is the utter reliance on faith. I have searched for answers to the meaning of life and found nothing satisfying (or forty-two). One thing that helps maintain my sanity is the realization that I don't know everything and am not meant to do so. When Jesus says that he is God, I find comfort in the faith that he meant it.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Monday, November 27, 2006
Of blood and oil
So over te last few weeks my thought has lacked focus and the relentless purposefulness of this blog's early days is, as you are undoubtedly aware, missing. Be forewarned, this is my usual mental state. So I have had lots of ideas about what to write, but I keep forgetting them. So anyway, I'm going to indulge my fancy. and write about something trivial.
So I've been hearing a lot about this new movie, Blood Diamonds, and about how great it is, and about how evil I am for having diamonds put in my wife's engagement ring ( though perhaps I can be forgiven for thinking that the empty settings looked a bit plain),
But I'm confused; the logic escapes me. So most most of the wars that diamonds ar accused of starting--or funding, since nobodies actually fighting over the diamonds--are in Africa. These wars are fought with machetes and the occasional AK-47. Machetes cost less than 10 cents apiece, AK-47s with hundreds of rounds of ammunition cost less than fifty dollars(I actually looked this up). Forgive me for thinking that even in resource poor Africa, these wars could be funded without diamonds (of course I could be wrong, you'll remember how peaceful Africa was before the we started buying all its diamonds).
This is a classic case of Western manufactured guilt. I wrote about it a couple of posts ago. The thinking goes that I am well off, and they are not, so I must be somehow guilty of exploiting them. At least I think that's how it goes. Many people have told me this in much more circuitous fasion.
Anyway, if we're going to use this logic, why not boycott somethink that actually contributes in a major way to war. How about oil? Think of how many ruthless dictators are propped up by oil. Think how much money has been made by selling oil and given to terrorist orginizations tha are out to kill me (you can see
the added benefit here of personal salvation). Plus, oil is essential to the conduct of war--try running an F-16 on diamonds and keep your hand on the emergency eject button.
So if you really want to help the world put your car up on blocks, buy a bike, and ride it to the mall to buy a diamond necklass with all the money you saved by not buying gas.
So I've been hearing a lot about this new movie, Blood Diamonds, and about how great it is, and about how evil I am for having diamonds put in my wife's engagement ring ( though perhaps I can be forgiven for thinking that the empty settings looked a bit plain),
But I'm confused; the logic escapes me. So most most of the wars that diamonds ar accused of starting--or funding, since nobodies actually fighting over the diamonds--are in Africa. These wars are fought with machetes and the occasional AK-47. Machetes cost less than 10 cents apiece, AK-47s with hundreds of rounds of ammunition cost less than fifty dollars(I actually looked this up). Forgive me for thinking that even in resource poor Africa, these wars could be funded without diamonds (of course I could be wrong, you'll remember how peaceful Africa was before the we started buying all its diamonds).
This is a classic case of Western manufactured guilt. I wrote about it a couple of posts ago. The thinking goes that I am well off, and they are not, so I must be somehow guilty of exploiting them. At least I think that's how it goes. Many people have told me this in much more circuitous fasion.
Anyway, if we're going to use this logic, why not boycott somethink that actually contributes in a major way to war. How about oil? Think of how many ruthless dictators are propped up by oil. Think how much money has been made by selling oil and given to terrorist orginizations tha are out to kill me (you can see
the added benefit here of personal salvation). Plus, oil is essential to the conduct of war--try running an F-16 on diamonds and keep your hand on the emergency eject button.
So if you really want to help the world put your car up on blocks, buy a bike, and ride it to the mall to buy a diamond necklass with all the money you saved by not buying gas.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Dietrich says
"Our community with one another consists solely in what Christ has done to us...because Christian community is founded solely on Jesus Christ, it is a spiritual an not a human reality. In this it differs absolutely from all other communities...The basis of the community of the Spirit is truth; the basis of human community of spirit is desire."
I like this. Perhaps this is the point of the church, to show what true community can look like. To paint a contrast between the community of human desire and the community of the Spirit of Truth. In this we are what the Pilgrims (fitting reference inserted as a tribute to the holiday recently observed) envisioned themselves to be: a City on a Hill, shining out the light of Christ as a witness to the work of God in this world.
I like this. Perhaps this is the point of the church, to show what true community can look like. To paint a contrast between the community of human desire and the community of the Spirit of Truth. In this we are what the Pilgrims (fitting reference inserted as a tribute to the holiday recently observed) envisioned themselves to be: a City on a Hill, shining out the light of Christ as a witness to the work of God in this world.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
A confession
In my previous writing I was guilty of projecting my own feelings onto my generation. It was ill-disguised in unnecessary hyperbole and the odd mixed metaphor, and framed with the self-righteous question, but in its essentials it was my cry out into the wilderness. I don't know how to answer the questions it raises, but I do know fom observation that there are a lot of people who think like me.
I left the church for a few years because I didn't know how to face these issues. I still don't. The contradictions, the void within, the sense of purposelessness, the inability to say confidently to myself, "I Know". These things still haunt me, and sometimes, like last night, they flare up into outright depression. I was afraid, and so I hid my personal feelings in a general diatribe.
I do think that these are pressing issues for the church, because I don't think that I am alone (or rather I do feel like I'm alone, but at least I'm not the only one) in this pattern of thinking. I think that it is a product of our time. I left the church because I found it was easier to avoid these questions than to seek their answers. I came back at least in part because I found that even when unsuccessful, the search for answers was more rewarding.
I don't know why the world is the way it is. I don't know where God is, or how to know if he is. I don't know where God wants me, or what he wants me to do. And so I struggle forward, or backward as the case may be, and seek God.
I really feel like the church needs to figure out how to reach individuals who feel this way. The church tends to project a very confident aura, but I think sometimes people need to hear that its okay to not know. They need to hear that I feel the same way, not that I have all the answers they seek.
I don't know. This post doesn't make any sense to me so you should probably just ignore it.
I left the church for a few years because I didn't know how to face these issues. I still don't. The contradictions, the void within, the sense of purposelessness, the inability to say confidently to myself, "I Know". These things still haunt me, and sometimes, like last night, they flare up into outright depression. I was afraid, and so I hid my personal feelings in a general diatribe.
I do think that these are pressing issues for the church, because I don't think that I am alone (or rather I do feel like I'm alone, but at least I'm not the only one) in this pattern of thinking. I think that it is a product of our time. I left the church because I found it was easier to avoid these questions than to seek their answers. I came back at least in part because I found that even when unsuccessful, the search for answers was more rewarding.
I don't know why the world is the way it is. I don't know where God is, or how to know if he is. I don't know where God wants me, or what he wants me to do. And so I struggle forward, or backward as the case may be, and seek God.
I really feel like the church needs to figure out how to reach individuals who feel this way. The church tends to project a very confident aura, but I think sometimes people need to hear that its okay to not know. They need to hear that I feel the same way, not that I have all the answers they seek.
I don't know. This post doesn't make any sense to me so you should probably just ignore it.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Who are we?
What happens when the weight of the world collapses on your shoulders? What happens when the hidden contradictions that sustain your sanity crash together? What happens when you know to much, and can't make sense of any of it?
This is the state of my generation--at least of those who face themselves. Mystery and certainty ebb and flow in the history of the church at different times in different places. Our culture has explored the limits of technological progress. We have seen how far knowledge and certainty can take us. And now as we look around we wonder--what's it all worth? How has "progress" helped us?
We feel guilt. Why was I born amidst plenty that I do not deserve, while others were born into penury they did not deserve? We are the generation of the social gospel.
We sense contradiction. We know more about the way the world works han any generation in history, but we still don't understand it. We see a certainty in many parts of the church which we long for, yet abhor. How do you know? How can I know? How can you presume to know?
We are stranded in a spiritual desert. Many of us have no knowledge of even the basic facts of the gospel; others are rooted in the sandy soil of dumbed down Christianity. We don't read the Bible because we don't read; we watch TV and blog about our existential despair. Where is the beauty of the gospel?
We have left the church or never belonged to it. Why? The contradictions are too great and weigh upon us. We belive in our parents without believing in God, and when the dust settles we are left with an unsettling question, Who is God really? A fable? An invention? A soothing balm? We don't want these things. We want reality, harsh and unforgiving. We want relationship. We want to revel in the void of our existence. In the end, Pascals wager is too great for us. We are the generation of the world.
We don't really believe in reason. Logic is a quaint notion. We seek emotional experiences, bright lights, voices from heaven. We have abandoned the life of the mind in favor of experiential learning. If you haven't felt it, is it real? If you have felt it, is it real? Reality and nonreality have become confused in our minds. Is there truth?
We feel empty, devoid of purpose. We have no desire to carry on the exploits of previous generations. Their value is questionable at best. And so we live with the void and accept that it is unfillable. We don't even want to fill it, so wrapped up is it in our identity. We are the empty generation.
We are the generation of Kierkegaard's leap. We just don't know it. We want to know without being able to know, to believe without understanding belief, to be saved without comprehending what we are saved from.
And so, how will you minister to us, who have grown up, aChristian, areligious, empty, experiential, questioning? How will you show us the gospel of Christ? How will you bring us into the church and show us what true relationship can be? How will you help us, the wanderlust generation, to put down roots in the soil of the gospel? How will you show the love of Christ to us, who are not concerned with rational arguments and theology, but with relationships, experience and emotion? We are different. How are you going to react?
This is the state of my generation--at least of those who face themselves. Mystery and certainty ebb and flow in the history of the church at different times in different places. Our culture has explored the limits of technological progress. We have seen how far knowledge and certainty can take us. And now as we look around we wonder--what's it all worth? How has "progress" helped us?
We feel guilt. Why was I born amidst plenty that I do not deserve, while others were born into penury they did not deserve? We are the generation of the social gospel.
We sense contradiction. We know more about the way the world works han any generation in history, but we still don't understand it. We see a certainty in many parts of the church which we long for, yet abhor. How do you know? How can I know? How can you presume to know?
We are stranded in a spiritual desert. Many of us have no knowledge of even the basic facts of the gospel; others are rooted in the sandy soil of dumbed down Christianity. We don't read the Bible because we don't read; we watch TV and blog about our existential despair. Where is the beauty of the gospel?
We have left the church or never belonged to it. Why? The contradictions are too great and weigh upon us. We belive in our parents without believing in God, and when the dust settles we are left with an unsettling question, Who is God really? A fable? An invention? A soothing balm? We don't want these things. We want reality, harsh and unforgiving. We want relationship. We want to revel in the void of our existence. In the end, Pascals wager is too great for us. We are the generation of the world.
We don't really believe in reason. Logic is a quaint notion. We seek emotional experiences, bright lights, voices from heaven. We have abandoned the life of the mind in favor of experiential learning. If you haven't felt it, is it real? If you have felt it, is it real? Reality and nonreality have become confused in our minds. Is there truth?
We feel empty, devoid of purpose. We have no desire to carry on the exploits of previous generations. Their value is questionable at best. And so we live with the void and accept that it is unfillable. We don't even want to fill it, so wrapped up is it in our identity. We are the empty generation.
We are the generation of Kierkegaard's leap. We just don't know it. We want to know without being able to know, to believe without understanding belief, to be saved without comprehending what we are saved from.
And so, how will you minister to us, who have grown up, aChristian, areligious, empty, experiential, questioning? How will you show us the gospel of Christ? How will you bring us into the church and show us what true relationship can be? How will you help us, the wanderlust generation, to put down roots in the soil of the gospel? How will you show the love of Christ to us, who are not concerned with rational arguments and theology, but with relationships, experience and emotion? We are different. How are you going to react?
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Comments on a comment
The commentator Jedi said: "What if you view you home - your life - as manifestations of the the Kingdom of God in the world? Could the reward in relationship simply be the joy of seeing someone touched by the Kingdom."
Yes
My home, just as much as the church is a manifestation of the City of God in the world. It is in my home that true relationship occurs. Relationship begins outside the home--at church, at work, at the park--but it is brought to fulfillment in my home and in the homes of my friends. This is where the bonds of relationship are forged. When I invite a friend into my home I expose myself, and open myself to relationship. When I spend time with someone around my dinner table, or working in the yard, The connections we have are magnified. This is where God's work in relationship is accomplished.
When this friend is outside of the City, the part of the reward in bringing them into my home is seeing them encounter the reality of the Kingom of God that is present here. But and important caveat must be made. The joy I feel in seeing a friend encounter the City, even for a short time, is not an abstract joy. It is concrete, rooted in the fact that this is my friend, that we enjoy each other.
Thus the reward is not "simply the joy of seeing someone touched by the Kingdom;" it is "simply the joy of seeing the one that I love touched by the Kingdom."
Yes
My home, just as much as the church is a manifestation of the City of God in the world. It is in my home that true relationship occurs. Relationship begins outside the home--at church, at work, at the park--but it is brought to fulfillment in my home and in the homes of my friends. This is where the bonds of relationship are forged. When I invite a friend into my home I expose myself, and open myself to relationship. When I spend time with someone around my dinner table, or working in the yard, The connections we have are magnified. This is where God's work in relationship is accomplished.
When this friend is outside of the City, the part of the reward in bringing them into my home is seeing them encounter the reality of the Kingom of God that is present here. But and important caveat must be made. The joy I feel in seeing a friend encounter the City, even for a short time, is not an abstract joy. It is concrete, rooted in the fact that this is my friend, that we enjoy each other.
Thus the reward is not "simply the joy of seeing someone touched by the Kingdom;" it is "simply the joy of seeing the one that I love touched by the Kingdom."
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Thinking of Boethius again
He really was a pretty smart guy...
By every measure known to man, this is the best time in history to be alive, and this is the best place to live. Try to argue that it isn't (why does "it's not sound diffrent from "it isn't"?) and you will quickly discover its truth. We are richer, more educated, live longer and healthier lives, have more free time and less work, than any generation in history.
And yet the proper name for our time may very well be "The Age of the Psyhotherapist". We are, in addition to being the best-off generation in history, the most depressed generaion in history. Why?
I think that the two are inextricably linked. For most of human history, substinence has been the rule. Outside of a few individuals, greed has traditionally been a pretty distant sin. It's hard to aquire material wealth when all you have is what you make with your hands. When something is completely out of reach we tend to forget about it. But as our society has produced unparalleled wealth, we have aquired the habit. This is not a fundamental change in human nature, but rather a shift in emphasis. Through practice, our greed muscles have been strengthened to such a degree that they dominate our lives to the point that we can't imagine living without them.
It is importan to point out however, that we don't notice it. It is not, in most cases, an active pursuit. It is a passive process thaat has grown with each generation. I am more tied to material posessions and less likely to wait for what I want than my parents are..
So where does Boethius come in? He arugued rather convincingly that the source of human unhappiness is the pursuit of same in fortunes gifts. In other words, the reason we are unhappy is that we have pursued happiness in all the wrong places. As we have moved from substinence to extravagance we have seen this shift as a goal in and of itself. This increases our anxiety level, because even if we don't admit it, we all know that what fortune has given fortune has taken away. This leads to the rash of hyperanxiety and depression that has swept out culture.
Perhaps we have all become the rich young ruler to whom the idea of surrendering his wealth was such a foriegn concept that he walked away from the Kingdom of God.
Or maybe not, maybe all this material wealth really has made our lives better and depression is just a sign of civilizational decay.
By every measure known to man, this is the best time in history to be alive, and this is the best place to live. Try to argue that it isn't (why does "it's not sound diffrent from "it isn't"?) and you will quickly discover its truth. We are richer, more educated, live longer and healthier lives, have more free time and less work, than any generation in history.
And yet the proper name for our time may very well be "The Age of the Psyhotherapist". We are, in addition to being the best-off generation in history, the most depressed generaion in history. Why?
I think that the two are inextricably linked. For most of human history, substinence has been the rule. Outside of a few individuals, greed has traditionally been a pretty distant sin. It's hard to aquire material wealth when all you have is what you make with your hands. When something is completely out of reach we tend to forget about it. But as our society has produced unparalleled wealth, we have aquired the habit. This is not a fundamental change in human nature, but rather a shift in emphasis. Through practice, our greed muscles have been strengthened to such a degree that they dominate our lives to the point that we can't imagine living without them.
It is importan to point out however, that we don't notice it. It is not, in most cases, an active pursuit. It is a passive process thaat has grown with each generation. I am more tied to material posessions and less likely to wait for what I want than my parents are..
So where does Boethius come in? He arugued rather convincingly that the source of human unhappiness is the pursuit of same in fortunes gifts. In other words, the reason we are unhappy is that we have pursued happiness in all the wrong places. As we have moved from substinence to extravagance we have seen this shift as a goal in and of itself. This increases our anxiety level, because even if we don't admit it, we all know that what fortune has given fortune has taken away. This leads to the rash of hyperanxiety and depression that has swept out culture.
Perhaps we have all become the rich young ruler to whom the idea of surrendering his wealth was such a foriegn concept that he walked away from the Kingdom of God.
Or maybe not, maybe all this material wealth really has made our lives better and depression is just a sign of civilizational decay.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
What does God know anyway?
" Misunderstanding what God says when it says 'God is love' they think God itends [a painfree life], and hence they conclude that anything [that brings pain] indicates either that Gods wisdom, or power, or both, have broken down...God's wisdom is not and never was, pledged to make a fallen world happy , or to make ungodliness uncomfortable." J.I. Packer, "Knowing God"
I struggled with this for years, and eventually came to the same conclusion, though I could never put it in words as elegant as this. Pain in my life is not just a symptom of sin. It is a part of the plan of God for my life. God uses struggle and pain as a tool to teach me the lessons I need to learn in order to serve him and to glorify him. God is clear in his message that the purpose of my creation is to praise him and to enter into relationship with him. But just as pain is often an integral part of lessons learned in how to deal with this life for children (children in the house have taught me that almost no lesson learned is completely painfree), so it is also often an integral part in learning the lessons God has to teach me about how to live with and interact with him.
I struggled with this for years, and eventually came to the same conclusion, though I could never put it in words as elegant as this. Pain in my life is not just a symptom of sin. It is a part of the plan of God for my life. God uses struggle and pain as a tool to teach me the lessons I need to learn in order to serve him and to glorify him. God is clear in his message that the purpose of my creation is to praise him and to enter into relationship with him. But just as pain is often an integral part of lessons learned in how to deal with this life for children (children in the house have taught me that almost no lesson learned is completely painfree), so it is also often an integral part in learning the lessons God has to teach me about how to live with and interact with him.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
So what
A healthy church is a veritable Gordian knot of intertwining relationships that easily expands to introduce new strands...so what? Couldn't that just be the way any healthy organization looks? Why discuss the church specifically?
The church differs from other social institutions in one important respect: it is established by God. The church is the goal of creation. Our purpose on Earth is to know God and to enter into relationship with him. God created each member of the church with specific abilities and gifts and called them into the church. The formation of Christian community is therefore both one of the tools God uses to call us into relationship with him, and the goal of that calling. We are not islands separated form each other in our relationships with God. As a church we form what Augustine refered to as the City of God.
What is this? The death and ressurection of Christ and the commision of the Spirit of God established an outpost of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth--the church. We are therefore the emmisaries of Christ, and the church is to be the model of true human relationship. It is, along with the Bible and the Spirit our key to forming relationship with God.
So then if our goal is to know God and enter into relationship with him how do we do that and how does the church fit in? I think that relationship with God is not so different from relationship with other human beings as we would suppose, though there are differences due to our complete unworthiness.
When I walk into a new church I don't walk up to the pastor and begin to talk to him expecting to enter into relationship with him. Why not? He is above me, more important in the church and probably a very busy man. I am merely a passerby. Out of respect for his higher position, I wait for him to seek relationship with me. This is natural in human relationship not just in church but in all human activity. The new hire doesn't expect the company president to want to talk to him and the average voter doesn't expect the President to want to talk to him. Position is an instinctive calculation for all of us when we seek out relationships, even if putting itt his way seems repugnant.
These are models for our relationship with God with a few important provisions. First, he is so far above us as to be incompareable to us, and second we have renounced every claim on relationship with him. We have no right to form a relationship with him.
But, the great thing is, he seeks out relationship with us, and calls us into the church to enter into communion with him. And he continually calls us into deeper relationship. The difficulty is that in this relationship, invitations to a deeper relationship are not as directly perceivable as in human relationship. But the parallels are there. We enter into relationship with God at his invitation--this is the beauty of the gospel.
Thus the importance of the church. Along with the Bible and the Holy Spirit, it is one of the avenues of relationship with God. The church was created to showcase human relationship and human-divine relationship. The point of the Gordian knot is to strengthen and enliven the bonds which link us to God and through encouragement and intervention to sustain us in that relationship.
The church differs from other social institutions in one important respect: it is established by God. The church is the goal of creation. Our purpose on Earth is to know God and to enter into relationship with him. God created each member of the church with specific abilities and gifts and called them into the church. The formation of Christian community is therefore both one of the tools God uses to call us into relationship with him, and the goal of that calling. We are not islands separated form each other in our relationships with God. As a church we form what Augustine refered to as the City of God.
What is this? The death and ressurection of Christ and the commision of the Spirit of God established an outpost of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth--the church. We are therefore the emmisaries of Christ, and the church is to be the model of true human relationship. It is, along with the Bible and the Spirit our key to forming relationship with God.
So then if our goal is to know God and enter into relationship with him how do we do that and how does the church fit in? I think that relationship with God is not so different from relationship with other human beings as we would suppose, though there are differences due to our complete unworthiness.
When I walk into a new church I don't walk up to the pastor and begin to talk to him expecting to enter into relationship with him. Why not? He is above me, more important in the church and probably a very busy man. I am merely a passerby. Out of respect for his higher position, I wait for him to seek relationship with me. This is natural in human relationship not just in church but in all human activity. The new hire doesn't expect the company president to want to talk to him and the average voter doesn't expect the President to want to talk to him. Position is an instinctive calculation for all of us when we seek out relationships, even if putting itt his way seems repugnant.
These are models for our relationship with God with a few important provisions. First, he is so far above us as to be incompareable to us, and second we have renounced every claim on relationship with him. We have no right to form a relationship with him.
But, the great thing is, he seeks out relationship with us, and calls us into the church to enter into communion with him. And he continually calls us into deeper relationship. The difficulty is that in this relationship, invitations to a deeper relationship are not as directly perceivable as in human relationship. But the parallels are there. We enter into relationship with God at his invitation--this is the beauty of the gospel.
Thus the importance of the church. Along with the Bible and the Holy Spirit, it is one of the avenues of relationship with God. The church was created to showcase human relationship and human-divine relationship. The point of the Gordian knot is to strengthen and enliven the bonds which link us to God and through encouragement and intervention to sustain us in that relationship.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Please like me, Please
In our culture today the church is often treated with contempt, particularly in intellectual and cultural circles. Why? Perhaps the church has lost respect because of its shameless pursuit of respect. In many ways the church has been reduced to groveling for approval at the feet of our culture. It has transformed itself in an effort to appeal o te culture with rock-band services and a new glitzy face. We try to appeal to people by becoming like them. Have we given up a piece of ourselves to the mob in the hopes that they would like us?
This is a rough idea, and needs polishing. But I think there is some truth in it. It may germinate for a while and pop up again.
This is a rough idea, and needs polishing. But I think there is some truth in it. It may germinate for a while and pop up again.
On a completely different and much lighter note
I have always been fascinated by the way legends grow and spread. Among the most interesting are the semi-mythic figures that take on different forms in different places. My personal favorite is St. George. Did you know:
That he is he patron saint of England where he takes the form of a victorious dragon-slaying crusader?
That he is one of the most important saints of the Coptic church where he is Egyptian and still a dragon-slayer, though not a crusader?
That he is the saint of the Ossetians in the Caucauses region of Russia where he is half-man and half horse, though still a mighty warrior and the spirit of the mountains?
That he is he patron saint of England where he takes the form of a victorious dragon-slaying crusader?
That he is one of the most important saints of the Coptic church where he is Egyptian and still a dragon-slayer, though not a crusader?
That he is the saint of the Ossetians in the Caucauses region of Russia where he is half-man and half horse, though still a mighty warrior and the spirit of the mountains?
Friday, November 03, 2006
clarification
The previous may have been a little unclear...
There should be a clear distinction made between longterm relationships, and short term associations. The former are the glue that bind the church together, sutaining it and giving it vibrancy and resiliancy. They are based on a deep commitment of dedication sacrifice and mutual appreciation. The latter may be based on any number of things--circumstance, common interest, or unilateral initiative. They do not bind the church into community because of their transitory nature, however, they may have some value. They bring people together and increase the level of human interaction and they offer the chance to form long lasting relationship.
The problem I see in many programs designed to bring people into the church through relational outreach, is that in their haste to act, they fail to make the distinction, or at least they fail to teach the distinction to the participants. This leads to an emphasis on short term associations, without a clear understanding of how to build these into deeper relationships. Thus the deep relationships that bind a person to the church and sustain them are often left to chance.
So how can we build up the deep friendships that are the life of the church? Should we pick a person at random from the church and decide to cultivate that relationship? I think no. This type of relationship is an organic growth that proceeds naturally. The trick is to learn to fertillize the associations we have that have a chance of turning into a deep relationship. This is the type of relational growth that cannot occur solely at the behest of hurch leaders. It requires a commitment of the church body to build the church through relationships.
Take for example the church I currently attend.
For starters it encourages the members to spend time together by providing food after the service so that people can stay and talk to each other. This increases the level of encounter and interaction and makes the rest possible. It also encourages members to carry this practice of eating together on during the week by having others over to dinner. Because this is done independantly, it works to increase the interaction of people who are inclined to have a relationship with each other. When forced to choose how they spend their time individuals generally tend to spend time with people they enjoy. Over time this builds strong bonds that criss-cross the church. This also acts to strengthen the bonds between people and creates multiple layers of relationship. Perhaps most importantly, the church leadership consciously tries to avoid leadership on most day to day affairs. It has set itself up to play the role of encourager in most activities. This encourages the members to take an active role in creating the type of activities in which they want to participate. Bad ideas and ideas that have outlived their time are allowed to die, while good and fresh ideas are built up and encouraged. This creates a wide range of options from movie night, to men's group, to Bible study, to study group, all led by the people who are most passionate about them. This gives the members a wide range of options and tends to build stronger relationships between like minded people.
The result is a messy unkempt organic growth. A web of connections of various strengths that intertwine and sustain each other. This gives the church a unique strength and appeal. It works naturally to build relationships at every level, and it provides a slow steady growth in committed membership. And it is slow--this is not the model for a megachurch. It is like the qrowth of an oak--slow, but well-rooted, strong, and lasting.
There should be a clear distinction made between longterm relationships, and short term associations. The former are the glue that bind the church together, sutaining it and giving it vibrancy and resiliancy. They are based on a deep commitment of dedication sacrifice and mutual appreciation. The latter may be based on any number of things--circumstance, common interest, or unilateral initiative. They do not bind the church into community because of their transitory nature, however, they may have some value. They bring people together and increase the level of human interaction and they offer the chance to form long lasting relationship.
The problem I see in many programs designed to bring people into the church through relational outreach, is that in their haste to act, they fail to make the distinction, or at least they fail to teach the distinction to the participants. This leads to an emphasis on short term associations, without a clear understanding of how to build these into deeper relationships. Thus the deep relationships that bind a person to the church and sustain them are often left to chance.
So how can we build up the deep friendships that are the life of the church? Should we pick a person at random from the church and decide to cultivate that relationship? I think no. This type of relationship is an organic growth that proceeds naturally. The trick is to learn to fertillize the associations we have that have a chance of turning into a deep relationship. This is the type of relational growth that cannot occur solely at the behest of hurch leaders. It requires a commitment of the church body to build the church through relationships.
Take for example the church I currently attend.
For starters it encourages the members to spend time together by providing food after the service so that people can stay and talk to each other. This increases the level of encounter and interaction and makes the rest possible. It also encourages members to carry this practice of eating together on during the week by having others over to dinner. Because this is done independantly, it works to increase the interaction of people who are inclined to have a relationship with each other. When forced to choose how they spend their time individuals generally tend to spend time with people they enjoy. Over time this builds strong bonds that criss-cross the church. This also acts to strengthen the bonds between people and creates multiple layers of relationship. Perhaps most importantly, the church leadership consciously tries to avoid leadership on most day to day affairs. It has set itself up to play the role of encourager in most activities. This encourages the members to take an active role in creating the type of activities in which they want to participate. Bad ideas and ideas that have outlived their time are allowed to die, while good and fresh ideas are built up and encouraged. This creates a wide range of options from movie night, to men's group, to Bible study, to study group, all led by the people who are most passionate about them. This gives the members a wide range of options and tends to build stronger relationships between like minded people.
The result is a messy unkempt organic growth. A web of connections of various strengths that intertwine and sustain each other. This gives the church a unique strength and appeal. It works naturally to build relationships at every level, and it provides a slow steady growth in committed membership. And it is slow--this is not the model for a megachurch. It is like the qrowth of an oak--slow, but well-rooted, strong, and lasting.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
misconceptions
Relationship is a two way street.
Lots of churches and Christian organizations have programs or mission statements that talk a lot about forming relationships. We are encouraged to form relationships with people who are new in the church or with "unchurched" people. It is a popular method of evangalization. This is great. In its formulation this model is a marvelous improvement on slick advertising campaigns and shout-it-from-the-corners. But is it practiced correctly? Do people understand what they mean when they say "I want to form a relationship with a non-Christian to bring them to Christ."?
Human nature requires us to act in our own self-interest. Altruism in its pure form is unattainable. Try doing something that brings no benefit to yourself. If you succeed you will have accomplished the goal of your quest and gained self-respect by having proven me wrong. Joking aside, we are incapable of forming a relationship with another person without the prospect of getting something in return. So, if I go out to form a relationship with someone in order to bring them into the church, "What's in it for me?" That depends, the danger here is that many people who participate in the relationship model don't understand this.
Why is this a danger? Can a constructive relationship form if the only thing one member is going to gain is a warm fuzzy feeling? Maybe, I know it happens, but in most cases, no. Especially in programs that have a target audience, like high school, the evangalist goes out and seeks a relationship with someone for the sole reason that they fit the profile. This is not the way to form lasting, valuable relationships. Why does the church have such a high attrition rate? I think the answer is twofold. The first, (which is not my subject today) is that many people are drawn in by flashy services with high advertising budgets, but little substance behind their facade. The second(which is), is that many people are drawn into the church by relationships which are transparent and single fibered. A member of the church goes out to form a relationship with a non-Christian, finds one, talks to them for a while and brings them to church, but there is little substance to the relationship because neither has much to offer the other.
Does this mean that the relationship model of church growth and evangalism is bunk? No! It is the most valuable and oldest method of evangalism. But in order to work it must be approached with eyes wide open. We should seek relationships with people, both within the church and outside of it. But instead of seeking relationship for relationship's sake because our pastor thinks its a good idea, we should be seeking relationships for what they offer. Relationships tend to be much more constructive if both parties enter asking not "what can I do for them?", but "what can they do for me?". True relationship is difficult business. It requires commitment, sacrifice, and dedication. How much are you willing to sacrifice for someone you don't understand or respect? Consider the ultimate human relaionship--marriage. Or the ultimate relationship--Christ and us. These are the models that we should look to in forming a relationship. I can't form a relationship with someone I don't understand or enjoy. You can't pick a friend out of an unknown crowd. When I become friends with someone, it is an organic process grown in mutual appreciation. I can fertilize it with conscious effort, but I cannot create the seed.
So what does a healthy church that emphasizes relationship look like? It is one in which the members understand what friendship is--an exchange in which both participants win. It is one in which the members seek to cultivate relationships both within and outside he church, not randomly, but consciously at every level. It is one in which the members spend their time wisely, cultivating relationships with people that God with whom God has connected them. Relationship is supposed to be fun. It is a duty and an obligation, but its rewards should be rich. It is a sacrifice, but the sacrifice is worth it. It is one in which members quickly work to strengthen new bonds to new people. When I bring a friend to church I hope that other members reach out to that person and weave them into the life of the church, welcoming them with open arms into the family.
A healthy church is a Gordian knot of interweaving tightly-bound relationships that is impossible to untie. I am friends with different people for different reasons, and the diversity of my own desires ensures that I am conneced to the church in many different places. In a healthy church this is true of every person so that the web of relationship is impossible to untangle.
Lots of churches and Christian organizations have programs or mission statements that talk a lot about forming relationships. We are encouraged to form relationships with people who are new in the church or with "unchurched" people. It is a popular method of evangalization. This is great. In its formulation this model is a marvelous improvement on slick advertising campaigns and shout-it-from-the-corners. But is it practiced correctly? Do people understand what they mean when they say "I want to form a relationship with a non-Christian to bring them to Christ."?
Human nature requires us to act in our own self-interest. Altruism in its pure form is unattainable. Try doing something that brings no benefit to yourself. If you succeed you will have accomplished the goal of your quest and gained self-respect by having proven me wrong. Joking aside, we are incapable of forming a relationship with another person without the prospect of getting something in return. So, if I go out to form a relationship with someone in order to bring them into the church, "What's in it for me?" That depends, the danger here is that many people who participate in the relationship model don't understand this.
Why is this a danger? Can a constructive relationship form if the only thing one member is going to gain is a warm fuzzy feeling? Maybe, I know it happens, but in most cases, no. Especially in programs that have a target audience, like high school, the evangalist goes out and seeks a relationship with someone for the sole reason that they fit the profile. This is not the way to form lasting, valuable relationships. Why does the church have such a high attrition rate? I think the answer is twofold. The first, (which is not my subject today) is that many people are drawn in by flashy services with high advertising budgets, but little substance behind their facade. The second(which is), is that many people are drawn into the church by relationships which are transparent and single fibered. A member of the church goes out to form a relationship with a non-Christian, finds one, talks to them for a while and brings them to church, but there is little substance to the relationship because neither has much to offer the other.
Does this mean that the relationship model of church growth and evangalism is bunk? No! It is the most valuable and oldest method of evangalism. But in order to work it must be approached with eyes wide open. We should seek relationships with people, both within the church and outside of it. But instead of seeking relationship for relationship's sake because our pastor thinks its a good idea, we should be seeking relationships for what they offer. Relationships tend to be much more constructive if both parties enter asking not "what can I do for them?", but "what can they do for me?". True relationship is difficult business. It requires commitment, sacrifice, and dedication. How much are you willing to sacrifice for someone you don't understand or respect? Consider the ultimate human relaionship--marriage. Or the ultimate relationship--Christ and us. These are the models that we should look to in forming a relationship. I can't form a relationship with someone I don't understand or enjoy. You can't pick a friend out of an unknown crowd. When I become friends with someone, it is an organic process grown in mutual appreciation. I can fertilize it with conscious effort, but I cannot create the seed.
So what does a healthy church that emphasizes relationship look like? It is one in which the members understand what friendship is--an exchange in which both participants win. It is one in which the members seek to cultivate relationships both within and outside he church, not randomly, but consciously at every level. It is one in which the members spend their time wisely, cultivating relationships with people that God with whom God has connected them. Relationship is supposed to be fun. It is a duty and an obligation, but its rewards should be rich. It is a sacrifice, but the sacrifice is worth it. It is one in which members quickly work to strengthen new bonds to new people. When I bring a friend to church I hope that other members reach out to that person and weave them into the life of the church, welcoming them with open arms into the family.
A healthy church is a Gordian knot of interweaving tightly-bound relationships that is impossible to untie. I am friends with different people for different reasons, and the diversity of my own desires ensures that I am conneced to the church in many different places. In a healthy church this is true of every person so that the web of relationship is impossible to untangle.
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.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Boethius said
"Anxiety is a necessary condition of human happiness since happiness is never completely acheived and never permenantly kept."
What he meant was that in order to be truly happy you must not be dependant on the whim of Fortune--the vision that appeared to him.
Its truth can be seen around us. I've had a number of conversations lately about the consumer culture we live in. If you hang around a church long enough you will hear it condemned. But technology has made our lives safer, longer and more comfortable. We actually have free time.
So is our consumerism wrong, or right? Is the evil in technology itself? Or does our unease come from equating happiness to material wealth?
Somewhere in the shift from sustinence to extravagance our definition of the good life changed. What is it now?
What he meant was that in order to be truly happy you must not be dependant on the whim of Fortune--the vision that appeared to him.
Its truth can be seen around us. I've had a number of conversations lately about the consumer culture we live in. If you hang around a church long enough you will hear it condemned. But technology has made our lives safer, longer and more comfortable. We actually have free time.
So is our consumerism wrong, or right? Is the evil in technology itself? Or does our unease come from equating happiness to material wealth?
Somewhere in the shift from sustinence to extravagance our definition of the good life changed. What is it now?
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The Kingdom of God
I live in the world. I move through i on a daily basis. And I am called to be a part of the Kingdom of God. What does that mean? God has called me and set me apart, but for what?
How should the Kingdom look? What is the alternative that I am supposed to display? Where is grace? Where are rules? What should I expect? Where do I fail? Where do I fit in? Where does the Kingdom of God fit into the world?
A lonely, isolated, secure, comfortable life has been replaced. I am called into community for the Kingdom cannot be an archipelago. I have a specific purpose within it...A purpose that requires interaction with other members of the Kingdom of God. But what is that purpose? What does the Kingdom of God look like? What is a community of believers supposed to look like? How is it to interact with the world-at-large? How am I, as a member of the City of God AND the City of Man supposed to act? If my first loyalty belongs to the City of God, to the community of believers, what does that mean? What am I striving for? Where am I going? What is the goal? What is the end that I seek? What does God want from me? Even if I knew what God wanted, how do I get there? What means does God want me to use? Christians in History have used every conceivable means to reach every conceivable end. Everyone manages to justify their own actions. How do I know that where I'm going and how to get there? What does God say about it? What do I say about it?
How should the Kingdom look? What is the alternative that I am supposed to display? Where is grace? Where are rules? What should I expect? Where do I fail? Where do I fit in? Where does the Kingdom of God fit into the world?
A lonely, isolated, secure, comfortable life has been replaced. I am called into community for the Kingdom cannot be an archipelago. I have a specific purpose within it...A purpose that requires interaction with other members of the Kingdom of God. But what is that purpose? What does the Kingdom of God look like? What is a community of believers supposed to look like? How is it to interact with the world-at-large? How am I, as a member of the City of God AND the City of Man supposed to act? If my first loyalty belongs to the City of God, to the community of believers, what does that mean? What am I striving for? Where am I going? What is the goal? What is the end that I seek? What does God want from me? Even if I knew what God wanted, how do I get there? What means does God want me to use? Christians in History have used every conceivable means to reach every conceivable end. Everyone manages to justify their own actions. How do I know that where I'm going and how to get there? What does God say about it? What do I say about it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
