Back on the book shelf
Consuming Faith: Integrating who we are with what we buy by Tom Beaudoin
Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord
Beyond Homelessness: Christian faith in a culture of displacement by Bouma-Prediger & Walsh
Body Politics: Five practices of the Christian community before the watching world by John Howard Yoder
The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Sitting in the just finished stack:
Becoming a Thinking Christian by John Cobb
The Way of a Pilgrim
The Jesus Way: A Conversation on the ways Jesus is the Way by Eugene Peterson
Surprised by Hope by N.T. Wright
The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis
In my backpack, on the table, on my nightstand, and on my Iphone's Kindle:
The God of Hope and the End of the World by John Polkinghorne
The Way of Jesus Christ by Jurgen Moltmann
Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton
Everything Must Change by Brian McLaren
In the soon to be read stack:
Original Sin by Alan Jacob
Subverting Global Myths by Vinoth Ramachandra
April 23, 2009
April 21, 2009
April 20, 2009
The Reality of the Poor
The question posed by the reality of the poor is no rhetorical question. It is a reality that calls on men and women not only to recognize and acknowledge it, but to take a primary, basic position regarding it. Outwardly, this reality demands that it be stated for what it is, and denounced. This is the stage of prophetic denunciation.
But inwardly, this same reality is a question for human beings as themselves participants in this sin of humankind. It is the call for their first great conversion. Men and women are being served notice here. They are being warned that the poor of this world are not the casual products of history. No, poverty results from the actions of other human beings.
from Getting the Poor Down From the Cross: Christology of Liberation, Jon Sobrino
April 18, 2009
The Slow Church & Spirit Time
RealLivePreacher has written a wonderful post about Slow Church. He opens with the Carthusian monks at the Grande Chartreuse monastery in France who allowed themselves to be filmed for the documentary: Into Great Silence. Of course, it only took them 16 years to get an answer back to the director.
I can remember in seminary that I was frustrated, frustrated beyond belief. The world was changing and the church was dragging its feet to catch up. Everyone knows that the culture, technology, ideology of the church is at least ten years behind if not a few centuries. Change couldn't come soon enough. Shortfalls are the easiest to spot in almost every scenario and belief, thus I wanted to change all things that I didn't like about the church. Certainly some of things were more noble than others. Certainly the church does need to change. But at the same time, I can't help but wonder if there is something right about slow change.
It could be that my frustration grew out of my own postmodern expediencies for instant change and the unsatiable desire for the new. Of course who wouldn't living in a culture full of instant meals, coffee, community (internet), and artificial desires created by marketing geniuses to trick us into simpy wanting the new car, house, phone, book series, shoes, etc)
I wonder if the many friends I have who are in that same place of frustration with the church are there because of the culture we live in. Certainly I believe they, as I did and still do, had good if not the best intentions for the church, the gospel, and engaging the world, but often our best intentions go awry due to the impervious nature of being honest and truthful with ourselves.
We live in a culture of instant change and insatiable desire for the new. It could be best that the church operates on a different timeline. Communities of faith, theology lived and believed, and transformation are all best served over time.
Here are some quotes from RLP that were beautiful in proving the rightness of the Slow Church:
Patience is a virtue my momma always told me. Indeed, patience is essential for meaningful life in the church.
I can remember in seminary that I was frustrated, frustrated beyond belief. The world was changing and the church was dragging its feet to catch up. Everyone knows that the culture, technology, ideology of the church is at least ten years behind if not a few centuries. Change couldn't come soon enough. Shortfalls are the easiest to spot in almost every scenario and belief, thus I wanted to change all things that I didn't like about the church. Certainly some of things were more noble than others. Certainly the church does need to change. But at the same time, I can't help but wonder if there is something right about slow change.
It could be that my frustration grew out of my own postmodern expediencies for instant change and the unsatiable desire for the new. Of course who wouldn't living in a culture full of instant meals, coffee, community (internet), and artificial desires created by marketing geniuses to trick us into simpy wanting the new car, house, phone, book series, shoes, etc)
I wonder if the many friends I have who are in that same place of frustration with the church are there because of the culture we live in. Certainly I believe they, as I did and still do, had good if not the best intentions for the church, the gospel, and engaging the world, but often our best intentions go awry due to the impervious nature of being honest and truthful with ourselves.
We live in a culture of instant change and insatiable desire for the new. It could be best that the church operates on a different timeline. Communities of faith, theology lived and believed, and transformation are all best served over time.
Here are some quotes from RLP that were beautiful in proving the rightness of the Slow Church:
People tell me that the average stay for a pastor in an American church is 18 months. That astounds me. We might have a stack of rocks on our back porch for 18 months while we talk about what we should do with them. Most of our best stories span 5 or 6 years at least. It takes about a decade just to figure out what’s going on at our church.
If you are thinking we don’t get anything done, nothing could be further from the truth. We do things. We just do them slowly. With time as no burden or constraint, we find we can do a lot with our bare hands. Children built our rock-lined path through the woods. Children working with their hands the last Sunday morning of each month. It took 2 years, but why should that matter? I watched a lot of the construction process. The man who guided them was in no hurry and didn’t mind if they lengthened the path only a few feet a month. The children were laughing. They had fun. And they built something our community loves.
Things are settled into the ground and beautiful. These things exist because we’ve chosen to live our lives slowly and deliberately in this community. We’re living on Spirit time, not clock time.Don't hear me as swinging the pendulum as if the church doesn't need to change some things, certainly it must to survive and to communicate in the 21st Century. What needs to change along with the church though is our expectations for change. The new life so many of my frustrated friends, including myself, occurs within the slowing moving structures of the established and institutionalized, but it seems to me that too often we pull out of the farming business thinking it a failure long before seasons of harvest arise.
Patience is a virtue my momma always told me. Indeed, patience is essential for meaningful life in the church.
April 16, 2009
This is a Story about a Story: Lazarus & Abraham's Bosom
This is a story about a story.
There once was a special ship designed for a singular purpose. This craft was unlike any previous and any to follow it. In ways, this space craft was irreproducible for never had humankind seen the likes of cooperation and never again would humankind see the likes of cooperation that it took to manufacture such an incredible vessel. All, yes, all of the world’s nations came together to build the ship that would become named Lazarus.
Yet, it was not just the cooperation that afforded the uniqueness of this event. As you'll soon understand, no two Lazarus’ could exist, for that would mean earth’s resources would have been completely depleted. Yes, that’s right. It took half of the world’s natural resources and all of the earth’s human resources to create and build such a thing. It was actually because of the depletion of natural resources that Lazarus was dreamt up. The skies were all fouled up, the water (at least the potable water) had been mixed with death, and the earth injected with venom.
So, all had a dream, a dream of hope. Hope misdirected. Hope nevertheless.
Lazarus was created for a single mission: “Abraham’s Bosom.” Because humanity had become too "rich" in existence on earth, the only way to continue such lifestyles was of course to escape the place humans had called home since the beginning. Abraham’s Bosom is code for Mars' colonization. Lazarus was created for a single journey to Mars. There would be no return trips, for there was not enough fuel or resources.
Although only half of the world’s population (which had become ever shrinking due to the inhospitable planet (due to the richness of life I might add)) were allowed to escape. The journey to “Abraham’s Bosom,” the gathered coalition of a new world consisted mostly of the "have nots." It only seemed most appropriate that it be the poorest of the poor, those who had suffered at the hands of rich who created such a beautiful, full, and dying earth home be the beneficiaries of Lazarus' journey.
Why should those who scourged the earth with their brilliance, comfort, and technological advancement be allowed to leave their own gift: earth uninhabitable? Well, because they are the ones who came together with this plan to escape it all, to leave the poor behind, and create new life somewhere else. Why hope for a better earth when you can create one on a different planet? A reset button. So, as too often is the case, the powerful and rich misdirected the homeless and increasingly earthless.
For you see, Lazarus was hardly created to make it to Mars. Rather, the vessel's design and nature was to launch into the void of space as a giant, sealed casket, leaving enough people on earth to start all ever again. Lazarus would never make it to Mars, yet the earth would never be restored pristine. The latter group whose richness of life had conquered the grass, soil, and sea wailed out for their injustice through the silent voice of depression and loneliness. Life on earth would be lost not to polluted skies or seas, but to polluted hearts and souls. The former group, though the sacrifice of the first, found ill pleasure in this hope away from hope, hope against the odds of the universe. Maybe Lazarus would arrive to its destination.
But, this is a story about a story.
The real story is what happened thousands of years after this most inhumane and dreadful occurrence. Although the Lazarus and Abraham’s Bosom parable was passed around as a reminder to care for the earth initially, although the writer of this tale meant to call people’s minds to justice, creation care, and love, although the point was to never really say that such things had happened, but rather to point to the realities of ecological and economical crises; somehow humans missed the point.
Hope misdirected and hoping against all odds, all began to read the story of Lazarus as history. Some asked if there were records of the enormous ship. Others pondered the realities of life on Mars. Still others couldn’t figure out what ever happened to the people aboard Lazarus. Somehow, all had missed the point and covered their responsibilities of new life and care with befuddling questions and stark facts about what had "actually happened."
Inspired by Luke 16:19-31 (and N.T. Wright's interpretation of it found in Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church).
There once was a special ship designed for a singular purpose. This craft was unlike any previous and any to follow it. In ways, this space craft was irreproducible for never had humankind seen the likes of cooperation and never again would humankind see the likes of cooperation that it took to manufacture such an incredible vessel. All, yes, all of the world’s nations came together to build the ship that would become named Lazarus.
Yet, it was not just the cooperation that afforded the uniqueness of this event. As you'll soon understand, no two Lazarus’ could exist, for that would mean earth’s resources would have been completely depleted. Yes, that’s right. It took half of the world’s natural resources and all of the earth’s human resources to create and build such a thing. It was actually because of the depletion of natural resources that Lazarus was dreamt up. The skies were all fouled up, the water (at least the potable water) had been mixed with death, and the earth injected with venom.
So, all had a dream, a dream of hope. Hope misdirected. Hope nevertheless.
Lazarus was created for a single mission: “Abraham’s Bosom.” Because humanity had become too "rich" in existence on earth, the only way to continue such lifestyles was of course to escape the place humans had called home since the beginning. Abraham’s Bosom is code for Mars' colonization. Lazarus was created for a single journey to Mars. There would be no return trips, for there was not enough fuel or resources.
Although only half of the world’s population (which had become ever shrinking due to the inhospitable planet (due to the richness of life I might add)) were allowed to escape. The journey to “Abraham’s Bosom,” the gathered coalition of a new world consisted mostly of the "have nots." It only seemed most appropriate that it be the poorest of the poor, those who had suffered at the hands of rich who created such a beautiful, full, and dying earth home be the beneficiaries of Lazarus' journey.
Why should those who scourged the earth with their brilliance, comfort, and technological advancement be allowed to leave their own gift: earth uninhabitable? Well, because they are the ones who came together with this plan to escape it all, to leave the poor behind, and create new life somewhere else. Why hope for a better earth when you can create one on a different planet? A reset button. So, as too often is the case, the powerful and rich misdirected the homeless and increasingly earthless.
For you see, Lazarus was hardly created to make it to Mars. Rather, the vessel's design and nature was to launch into the void of space as a giant, sealed casket, leaving enough people on earth to start all ever again. Lazarus would never make it to Mars, yet the earth would never be restored pristine. The latter group whose richness of life had conquered the grass, soil, and sea wailed out for their injustice through the silent voice of depression and loneliness. Life on earth would be lost not to polluted skies or seas, but to polluted hearts and souls. The former group, though the sacrifice of the first, found ill pleasure in this hope away from hope, hope against the odds of the universe. Maybe Lazarus would arrive to its destination.
But, this is a story about a story.
The real story is what happened thousands of years after this most inhumane and dreadful occurrence. Although the Lazarus and Abraham’s Bosom parable was passed around as a reminder to care for the earth initially, although the writer of this tale meant to call people’s minds to justice, creation care, and love, although the point was to never really say that such things had happened, but rather to point to the realities of ecological and economical crises; somehow humans missed the point.
Hope misdirected and hoping against all odds, all began to read the story of Lazarus as history. Some asked if there were records of the enormous ship. Others pondered the realities of life on Mars. Still others couldn’t figure out what ever happened to the people aboard Lazarus. Somehow, all had missed the point and covered their responsibilities of new life and care with befuddling questions and stark facts about what had "actually happened."
Inspired by Luke 16:19-31 (and N.T. Wright's interpretation of it found in Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church).
April 12, 2009
My God, my God why have you forsaken me
Here's a video I created for our Good Friday worship service that centered on the 7 last sayings of Christ from the cross. My text comes from Matthew 27:46. Although it's not necessarily Resurrection appropriate, Happy Easter nevertheless! Maranatha!
April 4, 2009
April 2, 2009
if Atheists Ruled the World
Jonathan Brink posted this up and I have to follow in step here. You must watch this to the end...it will be offensive for those who don't care for "language."
March 26, 2009
What Got Jesus Killed: The Kingdom of God
A sermon for Lent:
What Got Jesus Killed: The Kingdom of God
Tonight we continue to explore what I believe to be one of the most important questions for us during the season of Lent-
Why did Jesus die on the Cross?
A few weeks ago Ann preached how Jesus was killed for equating himself with God: “I and the Father are one.”
While it is true that Jesus made these claims, Rome could have cared less about the theological quarrels and quibbles of the Jews. As a matter of fact, Rome was more concerned with political zealots like Judas Maccabeus. The time of Jesus had grown increasingly volatile, the Jews hungry for justice and freedom from 500 years of oppression.
There were rumors the Messiah was on his way, meaning Jews everywhere on the edge of their seat waiting for his call to overthrow the hands of its current oppressor: Rome.
The cross was not only reserved for guys like Barabbas, remember the violent, political traitor Pilate released instead of Jesus, but the cross was invented as a means of control, a reminder that Caesar was Lord, the Prince of Peace and if you didn’t like his Pax Romana then crucifixion was your fate..
Jesus died then, the death of a political traitor, someone forming a movement that countered the ways of Israel and Rome.
So, I want to begin with the end, I’ll give my answer for Why Jesus died on the cross, then work from there. So my answer to this central question is: “The Cross is the unavoidable cost of God’s mission.”
So what was this mission that got Jesus killed?
IN our reading from the Gospel of Luke, we find Jesus’ mission statement. Jesus, like every Jew of his time, read and reread the prophet Isaiah, because this was a prophet pregnant with hope, much like the nation of Israel.
As a matter of fact these words in Luke 4 came directly from Isaiah 61. Yet Isaiah didn’t invent these words or concepts. Rather, the mission of God found in Isaiah, quoted by Jesus come to us all the way from Leviticus 25: the year of Jubilee.
Jesus arrived in the first century scene with this message and mission: I am the jubilee.
Jubilee was the sort of hope every Israelites’ imagination was full of. Under Roman occupation, Jews throughout the Empire dreamed of Jubilee. Established under Moses, Jubilee was created as an economic institution within Israel where all debt was forgiven and every slave released on the 50th year.
In the very simplest of terms, Jubilee can be described as God’s holistic mission. The Jubilee revealed that nothing, absolutely nothing was more important than humans created in the dignity and image of their Creator, no economics system, debt, or injustice could hold people under oppression. Israel was to be a witness to God’s restoring justice by instituting the Jubilee.
And under the vicious violence of the Romans, freedom and restoration is exactly what Israel longed for. So, when Jesus came making this claim that in him, God’s rule was coming on earth, just like he had taught the disciples to pray, “Your Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven,” Jesus wasn’t making mere spiritual statement about the state of your soul when you die, he was making political pronouncements:
In me God’s restoration is occurring, the hope that you wait for is now in your midst.
Basically, Jesus was making the claim that exile was over and God’s kingdom, his rule of was present among them.
Now that’s good news to captive Israel, right?
From some Jewish writers from the 1st and 2nd century, we find that “repent and believe,” terms Jesus used to build this Kingdom movement, meant he was asking for nothing less than full allegiance, allegiance to himself as the way of Jubilee.
But every group found something didn’t like & wanted Jesus dead over. He was either too radical or he wasn’t radical enough.
This last week, I heard a condemning statement that said, “if Jesus came down and lived among us now, we wouldn’t crucify him, we’d laugh at him.” For the same reasons those in the 1st century killed him, we in the 21st century mock him.
One such group, is the ever recognizable Pharisees.
For the Pharisees, what got Jesus killed was their religion. Now I know everyone gives these guys a bad wrap, but I think if we were being honest ourselves then we’d most likely identify with them. See, the Pharisees were the common people who preferred the familial and communal worship of the synagogue to the Temple. These were the guys who worked hard to keep their faith intact while the Greeks propagated their culture everywhere. If it wasn’t for the Pharisees, who knows, orthodox Judaism may have been lost to Hellenism.
Eugene Peterson, the author of the Message Bible says that if Jesus was looking to align himself with a group, it would have been the Pharisees, grassroots, common people.
Where the Pharisees wanted to divide and define life by what was sacred and what was not, Jesus’ very presence collapsed their system of religious boundaries. The sacred became the secular and vice versa.
Jesus makes this claim on our lives: to follow Jesus means to give your life in every way. There is no part of you or your life that is separate from God. Yet, we still like to exclude God from our daily lives.
The same as the Pharisees, we hide behind our religion.
We think as long we go to church, serve on a committee, teach Sunday school, sing in the choir; we’ve fulfilled our allegiance to Jesus.
Jesus’ call to put our allegiance in God’s Kingdom means orienting our entire lives, our jobs, families, and careers, and even our church around him. It’s not the separate and definable Law that interests Jesus, but the living relationships of loving God and neighbor.
Does your life reflect the Kingdom of love and justice?
Another group that murdered Jesus was the Sadducees. The Sadducees were the affluent and aristocratic types, they were the priestly class.
For the Sadducees, what got Jesus killed was their nationalism. Because of bad theology, the Temple had become the single sign of God’s presence for Israel, therefore God was on their side. It was the Jewish hope that the Messiah would come and destroy all of Israel’s opponents.
Somehow Gods kingdom had become reduced to a single location, a single theology. The Sadducees forgot that Israel’s existence was not for themselves, but for others, for God to bless the world through.
A few weeks ago, one of our countries most important leaders said:
“The United States is the Last Great Hope of the World.”
The same as Caesar’s claim as Prince of Peace and Lord of Lord, and the Temple’s claim on God’s presence, we tend to make nationalistic claims reserved only for Jesus.
And the reason we do this is we don’t trust that Jesus’ ways are the best ways. We say we believe in Jesus as our Savior and Lord bringing in Jubilee, but we trust our nation for our salvation and freedom.
For Jesus, the means did not justify the ends because in God’s Kingdom, the means become the End. The final eschatological hope, the hope Israel had been waiting for, of God’s final Jubilee came through Jesus’ ministry of healing, forgiveness, reconciliation, enemy love, service, and self denial.
To follow Jesus means pledging allegiance first and foremost to God’s kingdom: a Kingdom here but not yet. We tend to put our trust and salvation not in Jesus’ ways (which by the way we’d rather ridicule), but in our nation’s way, the pursuit of the American dream.
Which last great hope of the world do you truly trust?
Another group couldn’t stand the means of Jesus. This group always justified their means with their ends.
For the Zealots, what got Jesus killed was their propensity toward violence. This was the group, inspired by the Maccabean revolution and filled with deep passion for the Jubilee -for freedom and restoration, that fervently worked to bring in God’s reign by overthrowing Rome.
Jesus’ mission statement from Isaiah 61 is remarkable for not only what it includes, but also what it excludes. Jesus says the Spirit is on him to preach the Gospel, proclaim freedom to the captives and release the oppressed (important to the zealots), and proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
Then he stops, and rolls up the scroll, certainly stealing the thunder from anyone with a tendency toward violence in the room. See in Isaiah, that final sentence reads:
To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD
And the day of vengeance of our God;
Obvious enemy love and forgiveness wouldn’t go over to well with this crowd, it may even get you thrown off a cliff. Jesus trusted this commitment to nonviolence all the way to the cross.
Do you pledge allegiance to a Kingdom where the means are the ends?
Many other names and ways of approaching life could be mentioned, both 1st century and 21st. Ultimately though what lead to the cross was Jesus’ ways for bringing about the Way.
For Jesus, the means are the ends. The kingdom had come and is coming. NO nation, church, or religion has the absolute right to claim God on their side.
The Kingdom shows up in glimpses when we feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison. The Kingdom reveals itself when we find our lives intersecting with God’s life in the world.
Jesus was killed for fulfilling his mission statement- for creating a movement of people within Israel and beyond who trusted his ways over the worlds.
What got Jesus killed was his call for allegiance not to God’s Kingdom, but God’s way of bringing about that Kingdom:
For the same reasons Jesus was killed in the 1st century, we mock him in the 21st-
“If anyone wants to follow me, he must pick up his cross and deny himself.”
What Got Jesus Killed: The Kingdom of God
Tonight we continue to explore what I believe to be one of the most important questions for us during the season of Lent-
Why did Jesus die on the Cross?
A few weeks ago Ann preached how Jesus was killed for equating himself with God: “I and the Father are one.”
While it is true that Jesus made these claims, Rome could have cared less about the theological quarrels and quibbles of the Jews. As a matter of fact, Rome was more concerned with political zealots like Judas Maccabeus. The time of Jesus had grown increasingly volatile, the Jews hungry for justice and freedom from 500 years of oppression.
There were rumors the Messiah was on his way, meaning Jews everywhere on the edge of their seat waiting for his call to overthrow the hands of its current oppressor: Rome.
The cross was not only reserved for guys like Barabbas, remember the violent, political traitor Pilate released instead of Jesus, but the cross was invented as a means of control, a reminder that Caesar was Lord, the Prince of Peace and if you didn’t like his Pax Romana then crucifixion was your fate..
Jesus died then, the death of a political traitor, someone forming a movement that countered the ways of Israel and Rome.
So, I want to begin with the end, I’ll give my answer for Why Jesus died on the cross, then work from there. So my answer to this central question is: “The Cross is the unavoidable cost of God’s mission.”
So what was this mission that got Jesus killed?
IN our reading from the Gospel of Luke, we find Jesus’ mission statement. Jesus, like every Jew of his time, read and reread the prophet Isaiah, because this was a prophet pregnant with hope, much like the nation of Israel.
As a matter of fact these words in Luke 4 came directly from Isaiah 61. Yet Isaiah didn’t invent these words or concepts. Rather, the mission of God found in Isaiah, quoted by Jesus come to us all the way from Leviticus 25: the year of Jubilee.
Jesus arrived in the first century scene with this message and mission: I am the jubilee.
Jubilee was the sort of hope every Israelites’ imagination was full of. Under Roman occupation, Jews throughout the Empire dreamed of Jubilee. Established under Moses, Jubilee was created as an economic institution within Israel where all debt was forgiven and every slave released on the 50th year.
In the very simplest of terms, Jubilee can be described as God’s holistic mission. The Jubilee revealed that nothing, absolutely nothing was more important than humans created in the dignity and image of their Creator, no economics system, debt, or injustice could hold people under oppression. Israel was to be a witness to God’s restoring justice by instituting the Jubilee.
And under the vicious violence of the Romans, freedom and restoration is exactly what Israel longed for. So, when Jesus came making this claim that in him, God’s rule was coming on earth, just like he had taught the disciples to pray, “Your Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven,” Jesus wasn’t making mere spiritual statement about the state of your soul when you die, he was making political pronouncements:
In me God’s restoration is occurring, the hope that you wait for is now in your midst.
Basically, Jesus was making the claim that exile was over and God’s kingdom, his rule of was present among them.
Now that’s good news to captive Israel, right?
From some Jewish writers from the 1st and 2nd century, we find that “repent and believe,” terms Jesus used to build this Kingdom movement, meant he was asking for nothing less than full allegiance, allegiance to himself as the way of Jubilee.
But every group found something didn’t like & wanted Jesus dead over. He was either too radical or he wasn’t radical enough.
This last week, I heard a condemning statement that said, “if Jesus came down and lived among us now, we wouldn’t crucify him, we’d laugh at him.” For the same reasons those in the 1st century killed him, we in the 21st century mock him.
One such group, is the ever recognizable Pharisees.
For the Pharisees, what got Jesus killed was their religion. Now I know everyone gives these guys a bad wrap, but I think if we were being honest ourselves then we’d most likely identify with them. See, the Pharisees were the common people who preferred the familial and communal worship of the synagogue to the Temple. These were the guys who worked hard to keep their faith intact while the Greeks propagated their culture everywhere. If it wasn’t for the Pharisees, who knows, orthodox Judaism may have been lost to Hellenism.
Eugene Peterson, the author of the Message Bible says that if Jesus was looking to align himself with a group, it would have been the Pharisees, grassroots, common people.
Where the Pharisees wanted to divide and define life by what was sacred and what was not, Jesus’ very presence collapsed their system of religious boundaries. The sacred became the secular and vice versa.
Jesus makes this claim on our lives: to follow Jesus means to give your life in every way. There is no part of you or your life that is separate from God. Yet, we still like to exclude God from our daily lives.
The same as the Pharisees, we hide behind our religion.
We think as long we go to church, serve on a committee, teach Sunday school, sing in the choir; we’ve fulfilled our allegiance to Jesus.
Jesus’ call to put our allegiance in God’s Kingdom means orienting our entire lives, our jobs, families, and careers, and even our church around him. It’s not the separate and definable Law that interests Jesus, but the living relationships of loving God and neighbor.
Does your life reflect the Kingdom of love and justice?
Another group that murdered Jesus was the Sadducees. The Sadducees were the affluent and aristocratic types, they were the priestly class.
For the Sadducees, what got Jesus killed was their nationalism. Because of bad theology, the Temple had become the single sign of God’s presence for Israel, therefore God was on their side. It was the Jewish hope that the Messiah would come and destroy all of Israel’s opponents.
Somehow Gods kingdom had become reduced to a single location, a single theology. The Sadducees forgot that Israel’s existence was not for themselves, but for others, for God to bless the world through.
A few weeks ago, one of our countries most important leaders said:
“The United States is the Last Great Hope of the World.”
The same as Caesar’s claim as Prince of Peace and Lord of Lord, and the Temple’s claim on God’s presence, we tend to make nationalistic claims reserved only for Jesus.
And the reason we do this is we don’t trust that Jesus’ ways are the best ways. We say we believe in Jesus as our Savior and Lord bringing in Jubilee, but we trust our nation for our salvation and freedom.
For Jesus, the means did not justify the ends because in God’s Kingdom, the means become the End. The final eschatological hope, the hope Israel had been waiting for, of God’s final Jubilee came through Jesus’ ministry of healing, forgiveness, reconciliation, enemy love, service, and self denial.
To follow Jesus means pledging allegiance first and foremost to God’s kingdom: a Kingdom here but not yet. We tend to put our trust and salvation not in Jesus’ ways (which by the way we’d rather ridicule), but in our nation’s way, the pursuit of the American dream.
Which last great hope of the world do you truly trust?
Another group couldn’t stand the means of Jesus. This group always justified their means with their ends.
For the Zealots, what got Jesus killed was their propensity toward violence. This was the group, inspired by the Maccabean revolution and filled with deep passion for the Jubilee -for freedom and restoration, that fervently worked to bring in God’s reign by overthrowing Rome.
Jesus’ mission statement from Isaiah 61 is remarkable for not only what it includes, but also what it excludes. Jesus says the Spirit is on him to preach the Gospel, proclaim freedom to the captives and release the oppressed (important to the zealots), and proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
Then he stops, and rolls up the scroll, certainly stealing the thunder from anyone with a tendency toward violence in the room. See in Isaiah, that final sentence reads:
To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD
And the day of vengeance of our God;
Obvious enemy love and forgiveness wouldn’t go over to well with this crowd, it may even get you thrown off a cliff. Jesus trusted this commitment to nonviolence all the way to the cross.
Do you pledge allegiance to a Kingdom where the means are the ends?
Many other names and ways of approaching life could be mentioned, both 1st century and 21st. Ultimately though what lead to the cross was Jesus’ ways for bringing about the Way.
For Jesus, the means are the ends. The kingdom had come and is coming. NO nation, church, or religion has the absolute right to claim God on their side.
The Kingdom shows up in glimpses when we feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison. The Kingdom reveals itself when we find our lives intersecting with God’s life in the world.
Jesus was killed for fulfilling his mission statement- for creating a movement of people within Israel and beyond who trusted his ways over the worlds.
What got Jesus killed was his call for allegiance not to God’s Kingdom, but God’s way of bringing about that Kingdom:
For the same reasons Jesus was killed in the 1st century, we mock him in the 21st-
“If anyone wants to follow me, he must pick up his cross and deny himself.”
March 25, 2009
A Culture of Anti-Materialism
The problem with our culture of consumerism is that it leans toward the power of docetism. Consumerism is never the drive to gather and store up our goods, it is the drive to replace our current goods with something else. Consumerism in essence denies material reality by always pointing beyond the product toward images and the insatiable desire to be clean, fresh, new, healthy, young, bold, smart, funny or whatever else we are told we are lacking.
Hear Rowan Williams', Archbishop of Canterbury's words (go here to listen or read in full):
There seems to be an ontology based on the myth of progress that produces the epistemology that says we can overcome aging, dying, sickness, disease, poverty, etc. Sure these are all well and noble pursuits (obviously some more than others), but reality doesn't seem to work this way. We must work toward solutions to the above mentioned problems, not by trying to defy the reality of the world and ecological economics, but by living faithfully within the means given to us on this planet. An ever expanding market is unsustainable. Rising tides raises all boats, good for the boat owners, and drowns all boat builders.
For every summer there must be a winter, for every birth a death. The market must shrink, it must go up and down in ways that are meaningful. Shrinking is part of the ontology of earth, the seasons, the tide, the ebb and flow. Markets, governments, and people die to make room for new ones.
Other notables from Rowan Williams "Ethics, Economics, and Global Justice:"
Hear Rowan Williams', Archbishop of Canterbury's words (go here to listen or read in full):
'..... far from being a materialist culture, we are a culture that is resentful about material reality, hungry for anything and everything that distances us from the constraints of being a physical animal subject to temporal processes, to uncontrollable changes and to sheer accident.''The economics of consumption are based on a belief in progress. Thus, for example, when our country and world face the first shrinking global market since WWII, we must realize that this is inevitable and necessary. Do you really believe that we can create a market that will be ever increasing, ever profitable, ever growing?
There seems to be an ontology based on the myth of progress that produces the epistemology that says we can overcome aging, dying, sickness, disease, poverty, etc. Sure these are all well and noble pursuits (obviously some more than others), but reality doesn't seem to work this way. We must work toward solutions to the above mentioned problems, not by trying to defy the reality of the world and ecological economics, but by living faithfully within the means given to us on this planet. An ever expanding market is unsustainable. Rising tides raises all boats, good for the boat owners, and drowns all boat builders.
For every summer there must be a winter, for every birth a death. The market must shrink, it must go up and down in ways that are meaningful. Shrinking is part of the ontology of earth, the seasons, the tide, the ebb and flow. Markets, governments, and people die to make room for new ones.
Other notables from Rowan Williams "Ethics, Economics, and Global Justice:"
We are delivered or converted not simply by resolving in a vacuum to be less greedy, but by understanding what it is to live as an organism which grows and changes and thus is involved in risk. We change because our minds or mindsets are changed and steered away from certain powerful but toxic myths. ...the state that promises maximised choice and minimal risk, is in serious danger of encouraging people to forget two fundamentals of economic reality – scarcity as an inexorable truth about a materially limited world, and concrete productivity and added value as the condition for increasing purchasing power or liberty, and thus sustaining any kind of market. The tension between these two things is, of course, at the heart of economic theory, and imbalance in economic reality arises when one or the other dominates for too long, producing an unhealthily controlled economy (scarcity-driven) or an unhealthily hyperactive and ill-regulated economy (based on the simple expansion of purchasing power). But forget that tension and what happens is not stability but plain confusion and fantasy. We have woken up belatedly to the results of behaving as though scarcity could be indefinitely deferred: the ecological crisis makes this painfully clear. Implied in what has just been said is a recognition of the dangers of 'growth' as an unexamined good. Growth out of poverty, growth towards a degree of intelligent control of one's circumstances, growth towards maturity of perception and sympathy – all these are manifestly good and ethically serious goals, and, as has already been suggested, there are ways of conducting our economic business that could honour and promote these. A goal of growth simply as an indefinite expansion of purchasing power is either vacuous or malign – malign to the extent that it inevitably implies the diminution of the capacity of others in a world of limited resource. Remember the significance of scarcity and vulnerability in shaping a sense of what ethical behaviour looks like.
Patience, trust and the acceptance of a world of real limitation are all hard work; yet the only liberation that is truly worth while is the liberation to be where we are and who we are as human beings, to be anchored in the reality that is properly ours. Other less serious and less risky enterprises may appear to promise a power that exceeds our limitations – but it is at the expense of truth, and so, ultimately at the expense of human life itself. Perhaps the very heart of the current challenge is the invitation to discover a little more deeply what is involved in human freedom – not the illusory freedom of some fantasy of control.
March 23, 2009
A Society Controlled By Google?
In some wonderfully illuminating writing, Katie McGowan reflects on Google's ability to reshape or (re)Make the human ability to think. We use our technology, then our technology uses us. Using Foucault and Lyotard, she wades through the value claimsto get to the internet's ability to supposedly offer up unlimited (and correct) information at our finger tips. The article is worth reading in its entirety, but I've collected some quotes I thought were interesting:
In the instance of the Internet and Google’s search engines, it is our minds that are up for grabs on the auction block.
...‘we are not only what we read…we are how we read’, and is concerned about the Internet’s preference for quick and efficient information gathering at the cost of deep textual analysis and attention spans.
Such shifts in the way we think are not new phenomenon, says Carr. When humans began using the clock on a wide-scale basis, we began to change our internal habits of eating and sleeping based around the times of the clock.
Do these systems of knowledge transmission reflect systems of power and control, or is the Internet as we know it truly a semiotic democracy?
Carr points to this tension between the economics of the mind and that of the Internet. He argues, “The faster we surf across the Web — the more links we click and pages we view — the more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements
The relationship between knowledge and power then is “indispensable” in their relationship to systems of production. Google’s ability to increase production of knowledge through scientific and mathematic experimentation and algorithms creates a system of power, control, and knowledge in the image of its creators.
According to Lyotard, such “administrative procedures should make individuals ‘want’ what the system needs in order to perform well” (62). By giving us what we “want” through individualization via isolated and controlled environments, we are supporting the performance and economies of the Internet.
March 21, 2009
How about a Sweet Video
Left last week for Beaumont with some students from my faith community and have been vacationing from here for the last week, so to excuse the silence here's a great rendition of "Little Ride Riding Hood." Oh, by the way we dry walls an entire house in 2.5 days and got to see just how great our students are.
Slagsmålsklubben - Sponsored by destiny from Tomas Nilsson on Vimeo.
Slagsmålsklubben - Sponsored by destiny from Tomas Nilsson on Vimeo.
March 13, 2009
This Ain't Your Momma's Christianity...
Merehope posts up some interesting research from church historian, Mark Noll:
First, the magnitude. In order to grasp the current situation of world Christianity concretely, consider what went on last Sunday. More Roman Catholics attended church in the Philippines than in any single country of Europe. In China, where in 1970 there were no legally functioning churches at all, more believers probably gathered for worship than in all of so-called “Christian Europe.” And in Europe (as reported by Philip Jenkins) the church with the largest attendance last Sunday was in Kiev, and it is a church of Nigerian Pentecostals. Last Sunday, more Anglicans attended church in each of Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda than did Anglicans in Britain and Canada and Episcopalians in the U.S. combined. And several times more Anglicans attended church in Nigeria than in these other African countries. In Korea, where a century ago there existed only a bare handful of Christian believers, more people attended the Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul than all of the churches in significant American denominations like the Christian Reformed Church. In the United States, Roman Catholic mass was said in more languages than ever in American history. Last Sunday many of the churches with the largest congregations in England and France were filled with African or Caribbean faces. As a final indication of global trends, as of 1999 the largest chapter of the Jesuits was in India, and not as in the United States as had been the case for many decades before.
In a word, the world Christian situation is not what it was when your grandparents were born, or even when you were born.
March 12, 2009
Googling the Bible- De-Signs of the Times
In staff meeting a few days ago, we were talking about the lectionary reading for the fourth Sunday in Lent, which contains John 3:16. So I shared the story about Tim Tebow, the QB for the national champions Florida who put John 3:16 under his eyes, and that day "John 3:16" was the top Google search. Check it out yourself here and here. The implications being that enough people, in fact several thousand people didn't know and had to google John 3:16 to find out what it means. Yes, the staple verse that every person slightly familiar with the church knows had to be googled.
I think I was more surprised that the staff was surprised that so many people didn't know what John 3:16 means. I posted a few days ago about this study which revealed the fastest growing religious population in the USA are the "Nones" (see CNN"s coverage here).. Via Alan Hirsch's blog post on this subject, I was tuned into some interesting thoughts by a missional leader:
Oh, and here are some other good thoughts on this article.
I think I was more surprised that the staff was surprised that so many people didn't know what John 3:16 means. I posted a few days ago about this study which revealed the fastest growing religious population in the USA are the "Nones" (see CNN"s coverage here).. Via Alan Hirsch's blog post on this subject, I was tuned into some interesting thoughts by a missional leader:
In sum, the findings show or lead to the conclusion that:These are great thoughts and questions to ponder honestly in our cultural climate of religious change. There are doctrinal issues that are important, like how we read the Bible when dealing with women or homosexuals; but the church must start asking questions about true change. Yet, I wonder as I reflect upon my experience in staff meeting, if the church is capable of asking these questions. It seems, at least in my context, that the anomalies are just arising and when anomalies first pop their ugly heads our paradigms and plausibility structures have ways of ignoring them. What are the methodological, ecclesiological, budget, staff, small group, community development, worship, discipleship...what are the changes you see that we need to make?
1) Religion and Christianity are on the decline in the US;
2) Protestantism is doing worse than Catholicism due to Catholic immigrants;
3) Mormonism is keeping up with population growth, and Islam and New Age/Wicca are exceeding it;
4) Atheism, while still a small percentage of the population, is on the rise; and
5) "Spirituality,"--or non-organized belief in God--is still vibrant in the US.
What implications does this have for the church in the US?
- Attractional methods alone will have decreasing effectiveness, though they will reach some.-
- Not only theologically, but pragmatically, we must make the structure of the church be missional in nature and make dramatic changes in how we allocate our resources. This might mean moving all "Bible studies" off site, in coffee shops, Starbucks, homes, schools, etc.to meet people where they are. With antagonism and apathy towards religion, fewer will show up because we have better programs. And those that do will already be Christians.
- We need to train our members in knowledge of other faiths and resurgent atheism and methods to reach these adherents.
We must make dramatic changes. Sadly, however, most churches will do almost nothing to respond to these cultural changes. Those that do respond will respond incrementally only. With a shrinking pool of Christians, there will be an increasing competition amongst churches for members. This will, ironically, put more pressure upon church leaders to shore up "programs" to attract church members to shore up the decreasing member base.
In the midst of all of this, it is unbelievable to me that our fellowship is consumed on all sides with "doctrinal issues"--meanwhile our nation is hopelessly lost. And the resistance to making practical, methodological changes, such as replacing Sunday night worship or Wed. night classes with outreach and service, moving "classes" off site, planting new churches, changing times, making budgets missional, etc., is quite simply, absurd.
What do you think of these findings? How should the church respond to the changing (a)religious landscape of the US so that we can reach people today?
Oh, and here are some other good thoughts on this article.
March 11, 2009
Who's the Fastest Growing Religious Group in the US?
Would you have guessed Mormons?
Mormons have increased in numbers enough to hold their own proportionally, at 1.4 percent of the population.What about Muslims?
The Muslim proportion of the population continues to grow, from .3 percent in 1990 to .5 percent in 2001 to .6 percent in 2008.Baptists, of course?
Baptists, who constitute the largest non-Catholic Christian tradition, have increased their numbers by two million since 2001, but continue to decline as a proportion of the population.Then it must be the New Age folks, like the Wiccans?
Adherents of New Religious movements, inc luding Wiccans and self-described pagans, have grown faster this decade than in the 1990s.
“The percentage of Americans claiming no religion, which jumped from 8.2 in 1990 to 14.2 in 2001, has now increased to 15 percent. Given the estimated growth of the American adult population since the last census from 207 million to 228 million, that reflects an additional 4.7 million ‘Nones.’ Northern New England has now taken over from the Pacific Northwest as the least religious section of the country, with Vermont, at 34 percent ‘Nones,’ leading all other states by a full 9 points.The Nones? Yes, that's right, the Nones according to the American Religious Identification Survey from only a few days ago . So it could be very possible that:
‘Many people thought our 2001 finding was an anomaly,’ [Ariela] Keysar said. We now know it wasn’t. The ‘Nones’ are the only group to have grown in every state of the Union.’”
"It looks like the two-party system of American Protestantism--mainline versus evangelical--is collapsing," said Mark Silk, director of the Public Values Program. "A generic form of evangelicalism is emerging as the normative form of non-Catholic Christianity in the United State s."What to do in the flood of change, abandon the sinking ship, repair the ship, or build something else that'll float in the flood waters?
March 9, 2009
Supercessionism Revisited
C. Orthodoxy has a great post for revisiting supercessionism, and it makes me wonder if the church isn't in the same boat as we wait upon the coming Christ. Israel was no more the telos or goal of God on earth than the church. The purpose or goal is always Christ and the reconciliation he brings to earth.
March 8, 2009
March 6, 2009
Lent & Globalization
Lent is a refreshing time, refreshing in the sense that we are driven back, reminded, and disciplined toward that which gives us life: God. Traditionally, Christians practice a certain discipline that removes one activity, not because it is necessarily "bad," but because that activity or thing distracts us from the real source of abundant life. Fasting gives us time to feast, as WWJE (What Would Jesus Eat) reminds us here and here,
Lent always awakens my imagination. What can or do I need to fast from? What would be meaningful? What can I focus or feast on: prayer, Bible memorization, service? Much of my thought as of late as been on economics, consumerism, and globalization. Today I thought, "what would it look like to fast from globalization, and what would I feast on?"
In case your unsure what that -ization word means, here's Gerald Daly's definition that sums it up well: globalization "is characterized by the concentration of economic control in multinational firms and financial institutions, worldwide networks of production, exchange, communication and knowldge, transnational capital, and a freer flow of labor, goods, services, and information."
So, as I was pondering what it would look like to fast from the above, I thought...it's inescapable. I can't fast from globalization, it's not simply a personal choice but rather a national way of doing life. I could not buy any new consumer products and buy all my food local, but realistically this is not disengaging completely from globalization. All my past commodities, my car, the house I rent, the clothes I wear, the roads I drive on, the places I shop, the building I work in, everything has been produced my the grand narrative of globilization.
Driving this narrative is the myth of progress. With the crises of ecological disasters, global economic breakdown, exclusion of the poor, and the rise of conflicts because of resources we've seen that "progress" is unsustainable. Our markets, businesses, churches, communities, the "American Dream' is about sustaining the unsustainable all for the myth of progress.
As my Lenten reflection has lead me, the solution to globalized progress cannot simply leave behind the system, it's inescapable. Even my quest for a solution is driven by the narrative of progress..."what's next, how do we solve this problem?"
Maybe the recent economic meltdown is a reminder of how life actually works, not in progressive steps but in seasons, cyclical seasons of life and death, joy and pain, ups and downs. A civilization, a global village cannot exist on a story that does not embrace life through death, but rather does all that it can to ignore death, aging, and anything non-young.
My Lenten reflection leads me to think that solutions to globalization and a culture of progress cannot be as simple as "dumping" the system, but must provide real world answers in real world economics. This may mean compromising for the best possible solution at the time. Whatever it means, it means feasting on a God who invites us into seasons, Lent, Advent, Death, Resurrection. Truly the only way to live alternatively is to live within a different narrative, thus for Lent we should fast from progress and feast on reality.
Lent always awakens my imagination. What can or do I need to fast from? What would be meaningful? What can I focus or feast on: prayer, Bible memorization, service? Much of my thought as of late as been on economics, consumerism, and globalization. Today I thought, "what would it look like to fast from globalization, and what would I feast on?"
In case your unsure what that -ization word means, here's Gerald Daly's definition that sums it up well: globalization "is characterized by the concentration of economic control in multinational firms and financial institutions, worldwide networks of production, exchange, communication and knowldge, transnational capital, and a freer flow of labor, goods, services, and information."
So, as I was pondering what it would look like to fast from the above, I thought...it's inescapable. I can't fast from globalization, it's not simply a personal choice but rather a national way of doing life. I could not buy any new consumer products and buy all my food local, but realistically this is not disengaging completely from globalization. All my past commodities, my car, the house I rent, the clothes I wear, the roads I drive on, the places I shop, the building I work in, everything has been produced my the grand narrative of globilization.
Driving this narrative is the myth of progress. With the crises of ecological disasters, global economic breakdown, exclusion of the poor, and the rise of conflicts because of resources we've seen that "progress" is unsustainable. Our markets, businesses, churches, communities, the "American Dream' is about sustaining the unsustainable all for the myth of progress.
As my Lenten reflection has lead me, the solution to globalized progress cannot simply leave behind the system, it's inescapable. Even my quest for a solution is driven by the narrative of progress..."what's next, how do we solve this problem?"
Maybe the recent economic meltdown is a reminder of how life actually works, not in progressive steps but in seasons, cyclical seasons of life and death, joy and pain, ups and downs. A civilization, a global village cannot exist on a story that does not embrace life through death, but rather does all that it can to ignore death, aging, and anything non-young.
My Lenten reflection leads me to think that solutions to globalization and a culture of progress cannot be as simple as "dumping" the system, but must provide real world answers in real world economics. This may mean compromising for the best possible solution at the time. Whatever it means, it means feasting on a God who invites us into seasons, Lent, Advent, Death, Resurrection. Truly the only way to live alternatively is to live within a different narrative, thus for Lent we should fast from progress and feast on reality.
March 2, 2009
February 26, 2009
February 21, 2009
Current Retreat 2009: McLaren, Butler, Yee
Tomorrow after worship at First Baptist, my fellowship and faith family, my beautiful wife and I fly out to Orlando to spend 3 or so days at the Current Retreat. Current is a young leaders retreat put on annually for Baptists by Baptists...Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. I'm excited about the keynote speaker, Brian McLaren as well as Amy Butler (pastor of Calvary Baptist in D.C) and Joy Yee (from San Fran's 19th Ave. Bapt.).I'm pretty pumped about simply getting away to have this intentional time to be with young leaders...I'll finally get to meet the many other residents in the CBF pastoral resident program I'm in...and to be with Charlotte for a few days. Plus, CBF put us up in a hotel in down town Orlando. I won't be able to tell if I'm excited about Brian too much, until I figure out what he's speaking on. There are some things I'm sure he'll bring up, but hopefully he'll have some fresh perspectives and there will be oppurtunities for good dialogue.
Depending on wifi access at the church Current is being hosted at, I may or may not be blogging through McLaren's, Yee's, and Butler's presentations.
And by the way, FBC now has a blog.
True Intimacy
Human relationships easily become possessive. Our hearts so much desire to be loved that we are inclined to cling to the person who offers us love, affection, friendship, care, or support. Once we have seen or felt a hint of love, we want more of it. That explains why lovers so often bicker with each other. Lovers' quarrels are quarrels between people who want more of each other than they are able or willing to give.via.
It is very hard for love not to become possessive because our hearts look for perfect love and no human being is capable of that. Only God can offer perfect love. Therefore, the art of loving includes the art of giving one another space. When we invade one another's space and do not allow the other to be his or her own free person, we cause great suffering in our relationships. But when we give another space to move and share our gifts, true intimacy becomes possible.
-Henri Nouwen
February 18, 2009
February 15, 2009
Not Violent Enough?
I recently had a very interesting and thought provoking day listening to Pete Rollins, hosted by an interesting faith community, Journey Imperfect Faith Community. In two sessions, Pete laid out theoretical and philosophical approaches to doubt and community than he talked about practicing those thoughts.
There were several and very intelligent insights Rollins talked about, some which can be found in his books or blog. Rollins argues for a constant place of doubting God, an a/theistic approach to faith which bends toward the Christian tradition. In ways I think Rollins is capturing a faith hermeneutic of suspicion that is 1) very contextual to Ireland, 2) intrinsic to who he is and how is approaches faith, 3) important for the Church at large, especially in the West, 4) not for everyone, and 4) still in the process of being understood.
With that last note, something I really appreciate about his thought and practice is that Rollins doesn't need to have everything theologized and figured out before acting, but instead acts and than creates a theology around those actions in retrospect. Why I think this is important is because Rollins and this approach really allows people to participate in creating culture, community, and faith or non-faith.
The talk he gave is also a blog title, "Fundamentalism isn't too violent, It isn't violent enough." I do not like his use of the term "violent," but this post is well worth the read. Maybe his use of "violence" is right in the context of changing social structures, yet I still want to steer clear of the term "violence." The post is full of great thoughts, check it out.
There were several and very intelligent insights Rollins talked about, some which can be found in his books or blog. Rollins argues for a constant place of doubting God, an a/theistic approach to faith which bends toward the Christian tradition. In ways I think Rollins is capturing a faith hermeneutic of suspicion that is 1) very contextual to Ireland, 2) intrinsic to who he is and how is approaches faith, 3) important for the Church at large, especially in the West, 4) not for everyone, and 4) still in the process of being understood.
With that last note, something I really appreciate about his thought and practice is that Rollins doesn't need to have everything theologized and figured out before acting, but instead acts and than creates a theology around those actions in retrospect. Why I think this is important is because Rollins and this approach really allows people to participate in creating culture, community, and faith or non-faith.
The talk he gave is also a blog title, "Fundamentalism isn't too violent, It isn't violent enough." I do not like his use of the term "violent," but this post is well worth the read. Maybe his use of "violence" is right in the context of changing social structures, yet I still want to steer clear of the term "violence." The post is full of great thoughts, check it out.
February 9, 2009
Shenk & a missional ecclesiology
Wilbert Shenk asks, “What can we say are the main features of a missional ecclesiology? At least five things will characterize a missional church:
• The missional church is intensely aware that its priority is to witness to the kingdom of God so that people are being liberated from the oppressive power of idols. The church is consciously discerning and naming the idols.
• The church is deeply committed to the world but is not controlled by the world. In other words, the church knows that it has been placed in the world but is never to be subservient to the world. The absence of this tension indicates that the church has made its peace with the world.
• Mission is patterned after the example of Jesus the Messiah; that is, mission is cruciform. The vision of Isaiah 53 is being fulfilled as God’s people serve and witness. The cross is central.
• The missional church has a keen awareness of the eschaton. In Jesus Christ the kingdom has been inaugurated, but the people of God eagerly await the consummation of the kingdom.
• Church structures will serve and support its mission to the world. Human cultures inevitably change over time. The church must stay abreast of its changing cultural context, which will require the dismantling of archaic forms that impede missionary witness and the devising of new structures that support the mission
New Wineskins for New Wine: Toward a Post-Christendom Ecclesiology
via.
• The missional church is intensely aware that its priority is to witness to the kingdom of God so that people are being liberated from the oppressive power of idols. The church is consciously discerning and naming the idols.
• The church is deeply committed to the world but is not controlled by the world. In other words, the church knows that it has been placed in the world but is never to be subservient to the world. The absence of this tension indicates that the church has made its peace with the world.
• Mission is patterned after the example of Jesus the Messiah; that is, mission is cruciform. The vision of Isaiah 53 is being fulfilled as God’s people serve and witness. The cross is central.
• The missional church has a keen awareness of the eschaton. In Jesus Christ the kingdom has been inaugurated, but the people of God eagerly await the consummation of the kingdom.
• Church structures will serve and support its mission to the world. Human cultures inevitably change over time. The church must stay abreast of its changing cultural context, which will require the dismantling of archaic forms that impede missionary witness and the devising of new structures that support the mission
New Wineskins for New Wine: Toward a Post-Christendom Ecclesiology
via.
February 5, 2009
Sermon on Psalm 147: Praise. Praise?
I read these words in Psalm 147 and even before I get to the second verse I have to stop and ask, what kind of world did the Psalmist live in?
“Praise the Lord. How good it is to sing praises, how pleasant and fitting!”
Last Tuesday, I drove the church bus to the airport with Ahmed, an Iraqi case manager for the Texas Refugee Services. We met and picked up an Iraqi refugee family: a mother who knew some English and 5 children who spoke only Arabic.
We loaded the bus with their 7 bags before heading to their new home: the Villages of Lamer, a low income housing on North Lamar. These 7 bags represented the little bit of home they could bring with them to this strange and foreign land to puzzle their lives’ together. 7 bags don’t seem like much, but as Ahmed informed me, Iraqi’s tend to bring a lot. I guess a lot of luggage is 7 bags when compared to the one or no bags of African or Myanmar refugees bring.
At the Villages we found their apartments. The small third floor apt where the mother and three youngest children would reside, and the smaller apartment where the older boys would live. Each semi-decorated apartment was disheartening for me to walk into. This wasn’t home.
But it wasn’t the loneliness of these scantily decorated apt’s that broke the family, but rather the distance. As I drove Ahmed back to his offices, he told me that the boys were distraught that they’d have to be so far from their family in the complex…the complete opposite side.
Didn’t the Psalmist know that our world has wars and violence that tears people from their homes and places them in fear, discomfort, and brokenness. Wars that violate innocents and destroy the ability to praise.
Was the Psalmists world so different from ours where people’s hearts are filled with fear because of the loss of jobs, the deep grief over the loss of a son at the hands of a tragic accident or suicide, or the confusion over the loss of a parent or child due to sickness or cancer?
Praise God. Praise God?
Do we praise God because he’s some sort of narcissist who commands and needs our adoration. Does God demand our praise out of his own superficial vanity?
If the Psalmist is emphasizing praise as an imperative to ignore our world of suffering and pain or to reinforce Gods vanity, then maybe the atheists, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are right, our ancient book leads us to mere delusion.
But we don’t have to guess at the world of the Psalmist. We do know some things. As Ann mentioned a few weeks ago, our current Book of Psalms is actually 5 books placed together. And in this final 5th, where Psalm 147 resides we can infer that the community that would read and sing these words had experienced the harshest of tragedies imaginable for an Israelite.
The Southern Kingdom of Israel, the indestructible Kingdom of God’s Temple presence in Jerusalem has been conquered. The Israelites have been sent out into exile and the Temple destroyed. It’s truly amazing that the Jewish faith still exists to this day.
See the normal procedure in ancient Mesopotamia, was to change gods if you were conquered, because that meant your god was weak or false. What should have happened in this moment of defeat and exile, is that the Israelites should have given up on YHWH who allowed them to be conquered for Marduk or Baal.
OT theologian Walter Brueggemann distinguishes the Psalms in three categories: Psalms of orientation, disorientation, and reorientation.
Psalms of orientation praise God for how the world works, and how God blesses humanity, especially his people, how life works.
Psalms of disorientation or Lament Psalms, have God’s people crying out in their suffering and pain, these are about how life doesn’t work.
Finally, Psalms of reorientation are where God makes possibilities new, and recreates the broken world so new life is possible in the midst of exile, destruction, cancer, the loss of jobs, broken relationships, and despair.
The Psalm from our Psalmist tonight is one of reorientation: the possibility of new life.
With exile and destruction on his mind, and possibly with its marks on his body; the Psalmist declares in the foretaste of hope that God builds up Jerusalem, gathers the exiles, heals the brokenhearted, binds the wounded.
Flannery O’Connor puts words to this experience of praising God in the midst of situations of despair, pain, and oppression: when she says, “grace comes sometimes like a kick in the teeth, leaving us broken, wholly unable any longer to deny our need.”
Grace is a reminder that we need God, and dependence on God is faith. So praise in the midst and messiness of life transforms and shapes our faith’s ability to respond and with a new orientation see God and our situation differently.
Praise in song and music has historically empowered oppressed people’s faith, from the inside to the outside: from despair to hope, from captivity to freedom. One thinks of the power of African American spirituals.
Cornell West, in the documentary about modern day human slavery and trafficking, Call and Response, says:
“The music itself coming out of, especially black people in America, but of course its true for voices all around the world, is very much about this freedom; freedom which is spiritual, so when George Clinton said, ‘Free your mind and your ass will follow: the paradox of freedom is you would have, you have to experience the foretaste of freedom before you become part of a freedom movement.”
God wants us to praise him because God wants to free the world. God wants us to be free from sickness, despair, hate, and loneliness.
We need praise to know the appropriate response to suffering and injustice. Praise grounds us in faith in God, so within our situations of pain, neglect, depression, and violence we can have a foretaste of new life, of healing, of resurrection.
We do not praise God in ignorance or naïveté, but we praise God in solidarity and hope that love and justice will prevail, that peace will come, and that every knee will bow in an overwhelming response to God’s overwhelming love for us.
As Henri Nouwen wrote:
“Worship, to me, is constantly to say, “Yes’ to God’s love; to say, ‘Lord, I love you too.’ All of our life should be worship. Every occasion in our time should be an occasion to say, ‘Yes, I love you too.” That signals a change of heart.”
Praising God in the midst of the brokenness of life and sin, equips us with the appropriate response. Praise is the paradoxical tool of love that forms us for action and activism.
Praise is the paradox that allows us to affirm that grace can come to us in the ugliest of situations, so that when we cry out: “My God, My God, Why Have you forsaken me,” we stand in solidarity with our Lord. We are able to pick up our cross and know, as Bono has said:
“God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house… God is in the silence of a mother who has infected her child with a virus that will end both their lives… God is in the cries heard under the rubble of war… God is in the debris of wasted opportunity and lives, and God is with us if we are with them.”
Let us pray:
Praise God, for God so loved the world that he gave us his only Son.
Praise God, for God so love the world that he gave.
Praise God, for God so loved the world
Praise God, for God.
Praise God.
Amen.
“Praise the Lord. How good it is to sing praises, how pleasant and fitting!”
Last Tuesday, I drove the church bus to the airport with Ahmed, an Iraqi case manager for the Texas Refugee Services. We met and picked up an Iraqi refugee family: a mother who knew some English and 5 children who spoke only Arabic.
We loaded the bus with their 7 bags before heading to their new home: the Villages of Lamer, a low income housing on North Lamar. These 7 bags represented the little bit of home they could bring with them to this strange and foreign land to puzzle their lives’ together. 7 bags don’t seem like much, but as Ahmed informed me, Iraqi’s tend to bring a lot. I guess a lot of luggage is 7 bags when compared to the one or no bags of African or Myanmar refugees bring.
At the Villages we found their apartments. The small third floor apt where the mother and three youngest children would reside, and the smaller apartment where the older boys would live. Each semi-decorated apartment was disheartening for me to walk into. This wasn’t home.
But it wasn’t the loneliness of these scantily decorated apt’s that broke the family, but rather the distance. As I drove Ahmed back to his offices, he told me that the boys were distraught that they’d have to be so far from their family in the complex…the complete opposite side.
Didn’t the Psalmist know that our world has wars and violence that tears people from their homes and places them in fear, discomfort, and brokenness. Wars that violate innocents and destroy the ability to praise.
Was the Psalmists world so different from ours where people’s hearts are filled with fear because of the loss of jobs, the deep grief over the loss of a son at the hands of a tragic accident or suicide, or the confusion over the loss of a parent or child due to sickness or cancer?
Praise God. Praise God?
Do we praise God because he’s some sort of narcissist who commands and needs our adoration. Does God demand our praise out of his own superficial vanity?
If the Psalmist is emphasizing praise as an imperative to ignore our world of suffering and pain or to reinforce Gods vanity, then maybe the atheists, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are right, our ancient book leads us to mere delusion.
But we don’t have to guess at the world of the Psalmist. We do know some things. As Ann mentioned a few weeks ago, our current Book of Psalms is actually 5 books placed together. And in this final 5th, where Psalm 147 resides we can infer that the community that would read and sing these words had experienced the harshest of tragedies imaginable for an Israelite.
The Southern Kingdom of Israel, the indestructible Kingdom of God’s Temple presence in Jerusalem has been conquered. The Israelites have been sent out into exile and the Temple destroyed. It’s truly amazing that the Jewish faith still exists to this day.
See the normal procedure in ancient Mesopotamia, was to change gods if you were conquered, because that meant your god was weak or false. What should have happened in this moment of defeat and exile, is that the Israelites should have given up on YHWH who allowed them to be conquered for Marduk or Baal.
OT theologian Walter Brueggemann distinguishes the Psalms in three categories: Psalms of orientation, disorientation, and reorientation.
Psalms of orientation praise God for how the world works, and how God blesses humanity, especially his people, how life works.
Psalms of disorientation or Lament Psalms, have God’s people crying out in their suffering and pain, these are about how life doesn’t work.
Finally, Psalms of reorientation are where God makes possibilities new, and recreates the broken world so new life is possible in the midst of exile, destruction, cancer, the loss of jobs, broken relationships, and despair.
The Psalm from our Psalmist tonight is one of reorientation: the possibility of new life.
With exile and destruction on his mind, and possibly with its marks on his body; the Psalmist declares in the foretaste of hope that God builds up Jerusalem, gathers the exiles, heals the brokenhearted, binds the wounded.
Flannery O’Connor puts words to this experience of praising God in the midst of situations of despair, pain, and oppression: when she says, “grace comes sometimes like a kick in the teeth, leaving us broken, wholly unable any longer to deny our need.”
Grace is a reminder that we need God, and dependence on God is faith. So praise in the midst and messiness of life transforms and shapes our faith’s ability to respond and with a new orientation see God and our situation differently.
Praise in song and music has historically empowered oppressed people’s faith, from the inside to the outside: from despair to hope, from captivity to freedom. One thinks of the power of African American spirituals.
Cornell West, in the documentary about modern day human slavery and trafficking, Call and Response, says:
“The music itself coming out of, especially black people in America, but of course its true for voices all around the world, is very much about this freedom; freedom which is spiritual, so when George Clinton said, ‘Free your mind and your ass will follow: the paradox of freedom is you would have, you have to experience the foretaste of freedom before you become part of a freedom movement.”
God wants us to praise him because God wants to free the world. God wants us to be free from sickness, despair, hate, and loneliness.
We need praise to know the appropriate response to suffering and injustice. Praise grounds us in faith in God, so within our situations of pain, neglect, depression, and violence we can have a foretaste of new life, of healing, of resurrection.
We do not praise God in ignorance or naïveté, but we praise God in solidarity and hope that love and justice will prevail, that peace will come, and that every knee will bow in an overwhelming response to God’s overwhelming love for us.
As Henri Nouwen wrote:
“Worship, to me, is constantly to say, “Yes’ to God’s love; to say, ‘Lord, I love you too.’ All of our life should be worship. Every occasion in our time should be an occasion to say, ‘Yes, I love you too.” That signals a change of heart.”
Praising God in the midst of the brokenness of life and sin, equips us with the appropriate response. Praise is the paradoxical tool of love that forms us for action and activism.
Praise is the paradox that allows us to affirm that grace can come to us in the ugliest of situations, so that when we cry out: “My God, My God, Why Have you forsaken me,” we stand in solidarity with our Lord. We are able to pick up our cross and know, as Bono has said:
“God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house… God is in the silence of a mother who has infected her child with a virus that will end both their lives… God is in the cries heard under the rubble of war… God is in the debris of wasted opportunity and lives, and God is with us if we are with them.”
Let us pray:
Praise God, for God so loved the world that he gave us his only Son.
Praise God, for God so love the world that he gave.
Praise God, for God so loved the world
Praise God, for God.
Praise God.
Amen.
February 4, 2009
Rohr & It's Just Emerging
If you are not already listening to the HomebrewedChristianity podcast, then you should subscribe today. These two guys, one a friend from my days as a Crusader at UMHB, interview on a regular basis important and wonderful Christian thinkers like Phyllis Tickle, Walter Brueggemann, John Dominic Crossan, Brian McLaren, Leron Shults, Richard Rohr, John Cobb, etc.
Recently, they interviewed Rohr on contemplation, activism and the emerging church. I enjoyed the interview and Rohr's articulation. There was one statement though that Rohr made that struck me wrong. In his reflection on the emerging church, he says:
Why harp on this? It's not because I do not like Rohr or the emerging church, but exactly the opposite. This all goes back to a post from a few weeks ago on the commoficiation of the church. With the fear that I too am going to be overly simplistic and narrow, I feel that the single strongest influences on the formation of our culture and thus spiritual communities/people are consumerism and commodity fetish. The results of this culture are both positive and negative. Much of the emerging church movement can be understood through these lenses of commidification.
I'll be following up on these ideas, but whatever the emerging church is, it can not simply be boiled down to a statement that it's just happening because of the Spirit.
Recently, they interviewed Rohr on contemplation, activism and the emerging church. I enjoyed the interview and Rohr's articulation. There was one statement though that Rohr made that struck me wrong. In his reflection on the emerging church, he says:
"this mentality is emerging simultaneously, in many places...this tells me that this has to be the work of the Holy Spirit because there's no one angrily creating a reform or a schism or an attack, it's just emerging" (emphasis added).The disconcerting tone here is the naivety Rohr interprets this movement of traditions being willing to listen and open up to one another to find truths within each one in the Christian tradition. The lack of a central authority or place does not equate into a inexplainable movement of the Spirit that just happend. Certainly we are struggling to articulate terms and concepts to understand the changes in our world: postmodern, globalization, etc, but there are sociological, philosophical, and economic predicates determining the human condition. His statements seem to create an unhealthy perspective that singles religious life separate from the culture and globalization.
Why harp on this? It's not because I do not like Rohr or the emerging church, but exactly the opposite. This all goes back to a post from a few weeks ago on the commoficiation of the church. With the fear that I too am going to be overly simplistic and narrow, I feel that the single strongest influences on the formation of our culture and thus spiritual communities/people are consumerism and commodity fetish. The results of this culture are both positive and negative. Much of the emerging church movement can be understood through these lenses of commidification.
I'll be following up on these ideas, but whatever the emerging church is, it can not simply be boiled down to a statement that it's just happening because of the Spirit.
February 1, 2009
Don't Sweat It, Jesus said...
"The poor you will always have with you." I find it interesting to hear people say that they think Jesus meant that there will always be poor in the world. While I think there are multifarious reasons for wanting to read Jesus' words here as literally as possible: to assuage our guilt for not caring about the poor, to assuage our guilt for not helping when we could, we've been taught to read it this way, we need an excuse for poverty, etc; I still do not understand why we take these words found in Mark 14 so literally.
Jesus must have literally meant these words (which are not even a commandment, but a quote from Deuteronomy), but there is no way he could have meant literally that we sell our possessions to follow him, or to turn the other cheek, give up your cloak, or love your enemy.
Actually, what Jesus is referring to here in Mark 14 is that the law requires an open handed disposition toward the poor, so he was turning the hypocritical concern of the disciples for the poor on its head. If you must take something away from this passage and apply in so woodenly and literally don't let it be to assuage your or my affluence. What God desires is that his people must give to and care for those who cannot care for themselves.
Part of the solution might be flipping the above dilemma, switching the literal reading of Jesus' words in Mark 14 with the many commands that Jesus "could not have literally meant." Love your enemy, bless those who curse you, give away your possessions to the poor, and pick up your cross."
Of all the things Jesus said to take literally...
January 28, 2009
January 19, 2009
In Honor of Today
As we move toward a momentous Inauguration of the 44th President of the USA who will give his speech in front of a building built by slaves, may we look back and remember Martin Luther King Jr. and the many other prophets, activists, and truth-tellers who made this day possible, the Inauguration of an African American to the highest office in our country.
Today is a day not to celebrate the holiness of MLK or Barack Obama, but the effect that a normal man with temptations, trials, and imperfections can have on a nation. May we remember that these men reflect the people who have elected them, listened to them, and who these men have been the voice for. As we look back, let us look forward and see that there is still work to be done, reconciliation to be made, forgiveness to be given, and justice to be poured out. Thank you Martin Luther King Jr, Barack Obama, and the many others who've been given hope and who have given hope.
January 16, 2009
The Emerging Commodification of the Church
I do have my hang ups with how much time, energy, resources, thought, and planning goes into a single day of the week, Sunday. I've been brooding over this fact for some time now, but haven't come to any real conclusions about how I feel. In the "emerging missional church (EMC)" conversation, attractional vs. missional battle lines have been drawn and Sunday morning has become a topic often battered by a dualistic perspective that paints a strawman for the burning.
David Fitch, who has constantly been a helpful voice in this EMC conversation, recently wrote a good post on this issue referencing to Zizek's "decaffeinated belief:"
The power of consumer culture and the commodification of everything is that religious seekers can take objects, beliefs, and pieces of traditions and lift them out of their context to be used in whatever way they like. They can have their cake and eat it too, because they simply cut off the baggage from where those traditions arose.
In some respects, I believe this weakens the ability of emerging churches to form people for Kingdom work, because the main tool for combatting commodification is immersion in a religious community who emphasizes its deep religious tradition (baggage and all) for the formation of disciples. I know this is a generalization, but emerging churches are heavily influences by the culture of consumerism because they tend to be planted by those on the cutting edge of consumer culture.
Of course, I've excluded from this conversation "seeker churches," who attract people to church Sunday mornings by having a great rock show and a funny preacher (because I'm sympathetic to EMC). Sunday morning should be about formation:
My main concern though, is that churches critically engage culture so that contextualization is healthy (meaning the gospel doesn't get subsumed or overpowered by the culture). Our culture is a product of late capitalism, consumerism, and commodification; so we need traditions and narratives that will equip us to live counterculturally. We need Sunday mornings baggage and all to be unenjoyable, uncomfortable, and formative.
If you've made it this far, you might also be interested in Fitch's conversation over the epistemology of missiology and ecclesiology.
David Fitch, who has constantly been a helpful voice in this EMC conversation, recently wrote a good post on this issue referencing to Zizek's "decaffeinated belief:"
Zizek argues that when we say “I enjoy my religion” this implies that I don’t take it TOO seriously. For we really don’t want to take it too seriously (this is what the fundamentalists do according to Zizek). We keep it at a distance so to appear to be a Christian with all of it comforts and accoutrements yet not requiring any great disruption to a comfortable way of life. This distance, between the subject and the Symbolic Order, is what allows the subject’s Christianity (or religion) to be subsumed by the existing order.The existing order that controls Western culture is the power of the spectacle produced by consumer culture. We commodify everything including our faith. Sunday becomes about receiving religious goods. Pastors are recognizing this growing trend and
…agree that a growing number of worshipers are talking or sitting through the congregational singing writing notes during the special music, showing up 10-15 minutes late, not worried about interrupting anything or anyone. One pastor shared that a congregant stopped attending worship opting to stay home and worship with a church on television. When asked about this, the congregant responded, “Why does it matter where I watch the service?” Another pastor commented that people treat everything in the service as if it were a movie preview and it is not until the feature presentation (the sermon) that people really start paying attention. Or in other churches with a more contemporary style of worship a pastor stated, “Once the ‘concert’ is over, they just settle in waiting for a sermon.”Most church plants are in the business of Christian reconfiguration, they steal Christians from churches in the area instead of leading people to faith (and this is NOT an overstatement). My growing concern for the "emerging church" is that it preys on the sensabilities of its consumer culture, thus utilizing culture uncritically or being used by culture.
The power of consumer culture and the commodification of everything is that religious seekers can take objects, beliefs, and pieces of traditions and lift them out of their context to be used in whatever way they like. They can have their cake and eat it too, because they simply cut off the baggage from where those traditions arose.
In some respects, I believe this weakens the ability of emerging churches to form people for Kingdom work, because the main tool for combatting commodification is immersion in a religious community who emphasizes its deep religious tradition (baggage and all) for the formation of disciples. I know this is a generalization, but emerging churches are heavily influences by the culture of consumerism because they tend to be planted by those on the cutting edge of consumer culture.
Of course, I've excluded from this conversation "seeker churches," who attract people to church Sunday mornings by having a great rock show and a funny preacher (because I'm sympathetic to EMC). Sunday morning should be about formation:
Deep traditions like lectio divina, intentional community, monastic practices, authenticity, and vulnerability are all very important, but so are the communities, traditions, and histories they have grown up in. Much of the EMC conversation is reactionary and deconstructive (which is fine, I understand), but there is something unhealthy about simply cutting ties with communities of faith that tend to have baggage because they've been around for 50, 100, or 150 years. Of course, this critique works in the inverse. Communities with baggage need to be listening to churches who are concerned about doing and being church differently.I think this is a mistake. For the missional church communities require a regular practice for the shaping and forming of a people into the Life with God, the Mission of God. Missional people do not grow on trees. If then we would see people formed into the Missio Dei we must order our worship so as to be encountered by the living God. We must learn how to preach not as information but as proclamation and invite people into the Mission. The real presence at the Table must be the center of our gathering, our lives and our community. If we would see people formed into the Missio Dei, our gatherings must take on liturgical shape, a way of inviting people into the prayers, confessions and affirmations of the alive relationship we have with the living God of Mission. We must learn how to listen, interpret Scripture for what God is doing among us and in the world, hear God and then respond to God. This should be the character of our Sunday morning gatherings.
This kind of gathering should be both easier and harder to plan than any kind of programming approach we have hitherto been used to. It should be simpler and less focused on excellence of performance. It should not cost near as much in time, resourses and planning. It should be able to be done in a living room with three to thirty people or in a larger sanctuary with 200. Yet this kind of gathering takes more discernment of the Spirit, theological wisdom, historical sensitivity than we have been used to in the protestant church of our evangelical past (we haven’t paid attention to theology of worship in evangelical church). This way can lead us out of the wilderness of decaffeinated worship.
My main concern though, is that churches critically engage culture so that contextualization is healthy (meaning the gospel doesn't get subsumed or overpowered by the culture). Our culture is a product of late capitalism, consumerism, and commodification; so we need traditions and narratives that will equip us to live counterculturally. We need Sunday mornings baggage and all to be unenjoyable, uncomfortable, and formative.
If you've made it this far, you might also be interested in Fitch's conversation over the epistemology of missiology and ecclesiology.
January 14, 2009
Acting Faith
Faith is a strange reality. All humans whether Christian, Jewish, agnostic, atheistic, scientific, whatever practice faith. Faith deals with our ultimate concerns and how we appropriate those concerns. So if I believe that the world is ultimately material and that problems are solvable through scientific reason, then I will put my faith in science. Not that we do not divide our faith, but normally people tend to have a single overarching idea, substance, person, or deity to place their faith in.Faith is undergirded, strengthened, and even produced by action. We tend to believe in what we experience, trust what we know. Because we are humans with bodies, our minds and hearts tend to line up when we act out in faith according to our actions.
So, if you are struggling to believe maybe the question should be, what are you obeying? If your struggling to believe in a God of justice and love, maybe it's because your life reflects something else. As we move closer to the Lenten season, maybe this is the time to begin asking yourself what it is that God is calling you to give up or to give in to. Instead of worrying about believing first, maybe we should act first and let our hearts and minds catch up with reality.
January 12, 2009
Is Christ in Your Christianity?
Christianity without the living Christ is inevitably Christianity without discipleship, and Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity without Christ.Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 58-59.
The disciple is dragged out of the relative security into a life of absolute insecurity (that is, in truth, into the absolute security and safety of the fellowship of Jesus), from a life which is observable and calculable(is in in fact quite incalculable), out of the realm of the finite (which is in truth the infinite) into the realm of infinite possibilities (which is the one liberating reality).
January 10, 2009
Reading Log
I haven't posted much on here lately for various reasons. The break has been nice, and I'm trying to find a new direction this year for blogging. Instead of aggregating from the blogosphere as much as I seem to do, I'm going to try and focus on my situation and draw from what I'm reading/writing. In the mean time here's a list of books I've read, been reading, or plan to read.
What I've finished in the last month or so:
I've enjoyed digging deeper into theology with this German martyr, saint, prophet, and servant. Bonhoeffer's ethics would make many modern and conservative thinker uneasy simply because ethics are based in reality/experience. Therefore, we must struggle to know what to do according to our experience founded in Christ. I appreciate his unswerving allegiance to God and his drive to find concrete ways of acting in our secular world.
Hirsch and Frost are two creative thinkers who are fruitfully engaging the church and the changes in our culture. Their first book written together, The Shaping of Things to Come really served to shape the questions and direction my education in seminary would take. But I found this book rather simple and boring, I didn't read the last few chapters. I felt like they strained to connect their points with real examples. I'm sure this book will serve others in their journey, but it wasn't helpful for me.
Here is a wonderfully researched and edited volume coming out of Duke Divinity School. Unlike so many books on evangelism that deal with 10 steps or ways to intrude on the conversation, Chilcote and Warner have meticulously placed evangelism within the broader missio Dei. This work contains articles from Bosch, Newbigin, Hauerwas, Guder, Brueggemann, Ron Sider, Dana Robert, and many others dealing with several facets of this important theological issue.
Over Christmas break, to lighten things up, I picked up this little gem. Lest Innocent Blood tells a beautiful holocaust story (ironic?) of a little pacifist village in Southern France during German occupation led by protestant pastor, Andre Trocme that saved thousands of lives. I found myself fascinated by Andre, especially passionate marraige to Magda his agnostic wife. Everyone should read this book who has an inkling of interests in WWII and the Holocaust.
Recently read books:
Johnson's solution to our economic plight as Christians is to not seek a single perfect system, but to remain travelers or pilgrims in this world. With that in mind she takes the history of volunteer beggars through the development of economic thought and change from the 15th Century to modern times. This history is revealing to why we treat beggars the way we do and how economic thought and culture affects the church.
Cavanaugh is quickly becoming one of favorite author/theologians on matters concerning economics, faith, and the state. In this short volume he takes the readers through fallacies that exist within a consumer culture, like the idea of freedom in trade or detachment. Throughout the book Cavanaugh drops short hints or helpful suggestions for action for Christians in a consumer culture other than to feel bad for being a consumer.
I was impressed enough with the previous title, that I thought I'd try another book by Cavanaugh, and I wasn't disappointed. In this work, the author tackles the issue of political philosophy and how the state's narrative runs against the narrative of the gospel. Again, this book focuses on the power and fallacies of globalization. Cavanaugh focuses especially on the Eucharist and the church as means for working within these issues.
I didn't expect to like this book as much as I did since Van Til seems to believe that beliefs predicate actions. What I did find helpful in this look is how the capital market according to Adam Smith does not leave room or make the market accessible for some, the truly poor. His final few chapters are an interesting look at how equality without flat redistribution of wealth can occur (not meaning no redistribution).
Here's some books I'm in the middle of:
This rather dense look at how consumer culture affects faith by Georgetown theologian Vincent J. Miller is becoming one of my favorite reads. I thought I'd be able to pass through this book quicker, but I've found myself reading and rereading parts to get the concepts in my head. This book has also helped me understand a few other books I'm reading on postmodern philosophy and our culture.
Guy Debord is an interesting philosopher who takes his ques from Marx as well as Henri Lefebvre. I've posted a quote from Debord a few days ago. This book is an interesting look at how our culture affects us and how we as humans have moved from as "being to having," to now "having to appearing." Thus, our needs and reality become false based upon what we see, the spectacle produced by media and film.
Where so many people thought the Matrix movies were based somehow strangely on the gospels, the real inspiration comes from this french postmodern philosopher. Basically we live in a false reality, created by false desires because all that matters in assuaging the consumers desire for more.
And finally here's some works I'm either referencing, beginning, or hope to pick up in the near future:
What I've finished in the last month or so:
I've enjoyed digging deeper into theology with this German martyr, saint, prophet, and servant. Bonhoeffer's ethics would make many modern and conservative thinker uneasy simply because ethics are based in reality/experience. Therefore, we must struggle to know what to do according to our experience founded in Christ. I appreciate his unswerving allegiance to God and his drive to find concrete ways of acting in our secular world.
Hirsch and Frost are two creative thinkers who are fruitfully engaging the church and the changes in our culture. Their first book written together, The Shaping of Things to Come really served to shape the questions and direction my education in seminary would take. But I found this book rather simple and boring, I didn't read the last few chapters. I felt like they strained to connect their points with real examples. I'm sure this book will serve others in their journey, but it wasn't helpful for me.
Here is a wonderfully researched and edited volume coming out of Duke Divinity School. Unlike so many books on evangelism that deal with 10 steps or ways to intrude on the conversation, Chilcote and Warner have meticulously placed evangelism within the broader missio Dei. This work contains articles from Bosch, Newbigin, Hauerwas, Guder, Brueggemann, Ron Sider, Dana Robert, and many others dealing with several facets of this important theological issue.
Over Christmas break, to lighten things up, I picked up this little gem. Lest Innocent Blood tells a beautiful holocaust story (ironic?) of a little pacifist village in Southern France during German occupation led by protestant pastor, Andre Trocme that saved thousands of lives. I found myself fascinated by Andre, especially passionate marraige to Magda his agnostic wife. Everyone should read this book who has an inkling of interests in WWII and the Holocaust.
Recently read books:
Johnson's solution to our economic plight as Christians is to not seek a single perfect system, but to remain travelers or pilgrims in this world. With that in mind she takes the history of volunteer beggars through the development of economic thought and change from the 15th Century to modern times. This history is revealing to why we treat beggars the way we do and how economic thought and culture affects the church.
Cavanaugh is quickly becoming one of favorite author/theologians on matters concerning economics, faith, and the state. In this short volume he takes the readers through fallacies that exist within a consumer culture, like the idea of freedom in trade or detachment. Throughout the book Cavanaugh drops short hints or helpful suggestions for action for Christians in a consumer culture other than to feel bad for being a consumer.
I was impressed enough with the previous title, that I thought I'd try another book by Cavanaugh, and I wasn't disappointed. In this work, the author tackles the issue of political philosophy and how the state's narrative runs against the narrative of the gospel. Again, this book focuses on the power and fallacies of globalization. Cavanaugh focuses especially on the Eucharist and the church as means for working within these issues.
I didn't expect to like this book as much as I did since Van Til seems to believe that beliefs predicate actions. What I did find helpful in this look is how the capital market according to Adam Smith does not leave room or make the market accessible for some, the truly poor. His final few chapters are an interesting look at how equality without flat redistribution of wealth can occur (not meaning no redistribution).
Here's some books I'm in the middle of:
This rather dense look at how consumer culture affects faith by Georgetown theologian Vincent J. Miller is becoming one of my favorite reads. I thought I'd be able to pass through this book quicker, but I've found myself reading and rereading parts to get the concepts in my head. This book has also helped me understand a few other books I'm reading on postmodern philosophy and our culture.
Guy Debord is an interesting philosopher who takes his ques from Marx as well as Henri Lefebvre. I've posted a quote from Debord a few days ago. This book is an interesting look at how our culture affects us and how we as humans have moved from as "being to having," to now "having to appearing." Thus, our needs and reality become false based upon what we see, the spectacle produced by media and film.
Where so many people thought the Matrix movies were based somehow strangely on the gospels, the real inspiration comes from this french postmodern philosopher. Basically we live in a false reality, created by false desires because all that matters in assuaging the consumers desire for more.
And finally here's some works I'm either referencing, beginning, or hope to pick up in the near future:
January 7, 2009
Vegetarians Beware
The very reason you may be avoiding beef, poultry, and pork is trickling down into the veggies you love.
Truth as False
"In a world that is really upside down, the true is a moment of the false."
-Guy Debord, The Society of Spectactle
For Debord our reality is shaped by what we see and primarily we see media and the culture produced by late capitalism. For Marx humans went from "being to having" with the rise of the market economy and alienation of productivity. For Debord humans have moved from "having to appearing."
Our world is upside down because humans who at their core are creators and find meaning in capability, are reduced to passive recieptients of the spectactle. Television, movies, and media become societies way of giving meaning, solidarity, and the illusion that we participate in the world (video games like fishing, golfing, etc come to mind). Alienation prevails, humans relate to one another by sitting solitarily in their homes watching the same movies, news, or sports events which become the fabric of society.
Thus, truth is really false. Reality is a creation of the spectactle.
The church who wishes to Incarnate the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, must realize that it's truth will present itself as false. When we try and allow the culture of media and television to shape how we pronounce our truth then we've already lost our voice in the meaningless array of consumption.
Seeing reality for what it truly is is a difficult, yet human necessity. Living into the Kingdom of God means living out of the false reality of media. Solidarity is not the culture of media, but relationships, advocacy, and dependency.
-Guy Debord, The Society of Spectactle
For Debord our reality is shaped by what we see and primarily we see media and the culture produced by late capitalism. For Marx humans went from "being to having" with the rise of the market economy and alienation of productivity. For Debord humans have moved from "having to appearing."
Our world is upside down because humans who at their core are creators and find meaning in capability, are reduced to passive recieptients of the spectactle. Television, movies, and media become societies way of giving meaning, solidarity, and the illusion that we participate in the world (video games like fishing, golfing, etc come to mind). Alienation prevails, humans relate to one another by sitting solitarily in their homes watching the same movies, news, or sports events which become the fabric of society.
Thus, truth is really false. Reality is a creation of the spectactle.
The church who wishes to Incarnate the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, must realize that it's truth will present itself as false. When we try and allow the culture of media and television to shape how we pronounce our truth then we've already lost our voice in the meaningless array of consumption.
Seeing reality for what it truly is is a difficult, yet human necessity. Living into the Kingdom of God means living out of the false reality of media. Solidarity is not the culture of media, but relationships, advocacy, and dependency.
December 29, 2008
A Span of Events
Well since I've last posted, quite a bit has happened. Being on the road for the holidays has been conducive to posting, so here's a short summary of things happened. December 19th I walked across the stage at Truett Seminary where I received my Master's of Divinity with a 3.97 (and no they don't recognize degrees with honors at Truett). It was a great event, a marker, milestone, and place in my life. More importantly on that same day my beautiful wife and I celebrated 5 years of wonderful, hard, transforming, and wonferful life together.
The day after graduation I drove to my home town out in West Texas, Big Spring where we stayed the night. Then with my wife's side of the family we caravaned up to Ruidoso, NM for some skiing and relaxation in the mountains. We skiid Monday and Wednesday, tubed Tuesday, and celebrated Christmas on Thursday with gifts for the children (my niece and nephew) before heading to eat at Wendell, a restaurant at the Inn of the gods Casino, where I ate Elk among other things.
Finally, Friday we drove back into Big Spring where we celebrated Christmas with my side of the family. The larger family exchanged gifts "Chinese" style where Charlotte and I recieved a sweet bowl and knife. Then we all played a hilarious game of Taboo. I really enjoyed my time with my family this break. We got to share many memories, games, food, meals, and good times, as well as gifts. This year my side of the family bought some chickens, goats, rabbits, and bees for the Heifer Project.
Now Charlotte and I are back at home trying to recover and get settled back in. Hope you had a good Christmas and have a wonderful New Year.
I'll post up a link with pic's if I ever get it up.
The day after graduation I drove to my home town out in West Texas, Big Spring where we stayed the night. Then with my wife's side of the family we caravaned up to Ruidoso, NM for some skiing and relaxation in the mountains. We skiid Monday and Wednesday, tubed Tuesday, and celebrated Christmas on Thursday with gifts for the children (my niece and nephew) before heading to eat at Wendell, a restaurant at the Inn of the gods Casino, where I ate Elk among other things.
Finally, Friday we drove back into Big Spring where we celebrated Christmas with my side of the family. The larger family exchanged gifts "Chinese" style where Charlotte and I recieved a sweet bowl and knife. Then we all played a hilarious game of Taboo. I really enjoyed my time with my family this break. We got to share many memories, games, food, meals, and good times, as well as gifts. This year my side of the family bought some chickens, goats, rabbits, and bees for the Heifer Project.
Now Charlotte and I are back at home trying to recover and get settled back in. Hope you had a good Christmas and have a wonderful New Year.
I'll post up a link with pic's if I ever get it up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
