Originally posted on MennoDiscuss, answering the question, "Is it possible to love someone too much?"
Honestly, we all suffer from loving too little. We are too caught up in our own needs, more often than not (even if that need is a compulsion to help others). The Bible says that if we really love God, then we will love others, and that should never be in conflict. Our usual problem is not loving others too much but loving others in a way that is not love at all.
I know of a woman who loved her adult son so much that whenever he was in need, she would always be there for him. Whenever he needed money, she would provide it. Whenever he needed housing, she would always give it. Whatever he wanted, she was there. And so he became an emotional mess, serverly depressed, never able to provide for himself, a user of drugs and of people because he felt that others were there to help him overcome his suffering. She didn't love her son enough. Not because she didn't care for him, but because all she could see was her role as "mother who provided everything" rather than seriously looking at him to see what he really needed.
True love provides for one's need. But our human needs can be complex.
At times we need to be cared for. At times we need to be left alone to fend for ourselves.
At times we need to listened to. At times we need to listen to God.
At times we need a pat on the back. At times we need to be rebuked.
At times we need free food. At times we need an opportunity to work.
At times we need sex. At times we need abstinence.
At times we need corporate worship. At times we need a silent retreat.
Love is providing for another what they need, when they need it. True love is knowing someone well enough to provide what they really need when they really need it.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Churches Helping the Poor
This was posted in a forum on MennoDiscuss, in a discussion about whether it is enough for a church to help the poor or whether they should give them the gospel as well.
One thing I have noticed in working with the homeless for years in a church context is that "churchies"-- by which I mean middle class Christians-- are willing to give the gospel and they are willing to share resources, but they are often unwilling to do the very thing that would bring people to the Lord-- have a realtionship with the poor.
Both options that have been batted around on this forum-- giving help alone or giving the gospel with it-- are easy to do from a distance. I pass people with signs asking for food or some kind of handout. Usually I have breakfast bars to hand out to people. Sometimes I have a bag which has socks, a bar, some fruit and a tract. But honestly, does any of this really bring anyone to the Lord?
Of course, it is the Spirit that really brings people to the Lord, and we can pray for them. But do we? Do we enact the Spirit by praying for those whom we help?
The best thing we can do to bring people closer to God, to really meet people's needs is to do these things in the context of relationship. I know about 500 homeless people now. I know how they live, what their weaknesses are and their strengths. In the midst of this, I know if I can give them money or not. I know what they really need. I know how to pray for them, and I do. Now, that's easy for me, after all, I'm a pastor to the homeless. It's harder for someone in a middle class context to connect with someone in a lower class.
My recommendation: Rather than setting up a program in which one's church is "serving" the poor with a wall separated between them. Rather than handing out tracts to the poor in hopes that they would come to know Jesus and so become "like us" (which a lot of times means for them not only following Jesus, but also being middle class). Instead, as a family, invite a poor family out to dinner. Don't have them come to your house or go to their house, because they would feel either inadequate or judged. Find a neutral ground that you can just talk and find out more about each other.
Evangelism is so often seen as an instant event. But in reality, it is a long process. And the ones who will win souls aren't those who preach the message often enough, but who get to know people enough that they can really see Christ in them.
One thing I have noticed in working with the homeless for years in a church context is that "churchies"-- by which I mean middle class Christians-- are willing to give the gospel and they are willing to share resources, but they are often unwilling to do the very thing that would bring people to the Lord-- have a realtionship with the poor.
Both options that have been batted around on this forum-- giving help alone or giving the gospel with it-- are easy to do from a distance. I pass people with signs asking for food or some kind of handout. Usually I have breakfast bars to hand out to people. Sometimes I have a bag which has socks, a bar, some fruit and a tract. But honestly, does any of this really bring anyone to the Lord?
Of course, it is the Spirit that really brings people to the Lord, and we can pray for them. But do we? Do we enact the Spirit by praying for those whom we help?
The best thing we can do to bring people closer to God, to really meet people's needs is to do these things in the context of relationship. I know about 500 homeless people now. I know how they live, what their weaknesses are and their strengths. In the midst of this, I know if I can give them money or not. I know what they really need. I know how to pray for them, and I do. Now, that's easy for me, after all, I'm a pastor to the homeless. It's harder for someone in a middle class context to connect with someone in a lower class.
My recommendation: Rather than setting up a program in which one's church is "serving" the poor with a wall separated between them. Rather than handing out tracts to the poor in hopes that they would come to know Jesus and so become "like us" (which a lot of times means for them not only following Jesus, but also being middle class). Instead, as a family, invite a poor family out to dinner. Don't have them come to your house or go to their house, because they would feel either inadequate or judged. Find a neutral ground that you can just talk and find out more about each other.
Evangelism is so often seen as an instant event. But in reality, it is a long process. And the ones who will win souls aren't those who preach the message often enough, but who get to know people enough that they can really see Christ in them.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Interpreting Revelation
The book of Revelation is just so tricky. Everyone interprets it differently, and though there are schools of thought, I haven't seen any that I'm really enamored of. It seems to me that Revelation pretty much interprets itself.
1. The author says it was written to seven churches in ancient Turkey, most of which do not exist today. Thus, it means that the book was supposed to be understood by them. This doesn't mean that they would have seen all the events it expounds, but they would have read the book and said, "I know what that means"
2. The book has over 2000 OT references. So if we understand the OT well and looked at all the references, we might have a pretty good idea of what it meant.
3. The book clearly talks about future events. We just know these events were after the writing, but not when, specifically.
4. The book is a good portion allegorical. Since John often tells us "this symbol has this meaning" like at the end of chapter 1, then we know that a lot of the stranger symbols have specific meanings, which are often explained in either the OT, Jesus or other apocalyptic literature of the time.
5. The ones who are blessed are not just those who read the book and understand it, but who "do" it (1:3). Thus, the book isn't just about prophecies, but about actions that need to be listened to and obeyed. The majority of these commands are in chapters 2 and 3, but not exclusively.
These princples don't explain everything about the book, but I think it explains some. And I think that we can rule out most of the interprtive schools of the book from them:
Preterist: The whole book couldn't have taken place in the first century. Jesus didn't come back. Thus, at least part of the book hasn't been fulfilled yet.
Futurist and Historist: We can't read the book with newspapers (or History books) in our other hand. The seven churches didn't have the benefit of our contemporary literature, thus the contemporary literature must not be necessary for interpreting it.
Thus, I think that the book is full of symbols that could be interpreted in the ancient world about event that might not have occured yet. And one of the main focuses of the book is the life we are to live before God. So even if we get an event wrong, if we get the princples right and live them out, then we are okay.
1. The author says it was written to seven churches in ancient Turkey, most of which do not exist today. Thus, it means that the book was supposed to be understood by them. This doesn't mean that they would have seen all the events it expounds, but they would have read the book and said, "I know what that means"
2. The book has over 2000 OT references. So if we understand the OT well and looked at all the references, we might have a pretty good idea of what it meant.
3. The book clearly talks about future events. We just know these events were after the writing, but not when, specifically.
4. The book is a good portion allegorical. Since John often tells us "this symbol has this meaning" like at the end of chapter 1, then we know that a lot of the stranger symbols have specific meanings, which are often explained in either the OT, Jesus or other apocalyptic literature of the time.
5. The ones who are blessed are not just those who read the book and understand it, but who "do" it (1:3). Thus, the book isn't just about prophecies, but about actions that need to be listened to and obeyed. The majority of these commands are in chapters 2 and 3, but not exclusively.
These princples don't explain everything about the book, but I think it explains some. And I think that we can rule out most of the interprtive schools of the book from them:
Preterist: The whole book couldn't have taken place in the first century. Jesus didn't come back. Thus, at least part of the book hasn't been fulfilled yet.
Futurist and Historist: We can't read the book with newspapers (or History books) in our other hand. The seven churches didn't have the benefit of our contemporary literature, thus the contemporary literature must not be necessary for interpreting it.
Thus, I think that the book is full of symbols that could be interpreted in the ancient world about event that might not have occured yet. And one of the main focuses of the book is the life we are to live before God. So even if we get an event wrong, if we get the princples right and live them out, then we are okay.
Causality and Randomness
Posted in MySpace Philosophy group under the topic "Chaos and Randomness":
Whether any action that happens today is uncaused is a matter for debate.
But unless we hold that time is cyclical, was there not ONE action that was uncaused? That which initiated all things to exist?
The Big Bang was not uncaused. So there had to be some event before that. But the initial event of existance was uncaused.
We depend on causal thinking-- what was called "lazy reasoning"-- because it works, for the most part. Sometimes causal thinking doesn’t work because we have determined the wrong cause. Perhaps it is because some action has too many causes to consider. And perhaps it is because it has no cause.
But considering how many actions occur in a given day, how many forces, both sentient and non- are at work, then we can say that most actions have a cause, no matter how complex it may be. Whether we know or can understand the cause or not.
Whether any action that happens today is uncaused is a matter for debate.
But unless we hold that time is cyclical, was there not ONE action that was uncaused? That which initiated all things to exist?
The Big Bang was not uncaused. So there had to be some event before that. But the initial event of existance was uncaused.
We depend on causal thinking-- what was called "lazy reasoning"-- because it works, for the most part. Sometimes causal thinking doesn’t work because we have determined the wrong cause. Perhaps it is because some action has too many causes to consider. And perhaps it is because it has no cause.
But considering how many actions occur in a given day, how many forces, both sentient and non- are at work, then we can say that most actions have a cause, no matter how complex it may be. Whether we know or can understand the cause or not.
The Symbol of Light
Light, except is physics, is a symbol.
The question is, what does the symbol mean? Most of the time, light is equated with "truth", which definition deserves it’s own discussion.
But its use goes back to the ancient world, long even before the Gnostics, the New Testament or Plato.
The ancient concept of it goes like this:
In darkness, one cannot see well. In light, everything is exposed. In darkness everything is hidden. In light, everything is open. Thus, light becomes a symbol for knowledge, for truth that was otherwise unknown and for personal openness.
The question is, what does the symbol mean? Most of the time, light is equated with "truth", which definition deserves it’s own discussion.
But its use goes back to the ancient world, long even before the Gnostics, the New Testament or Plato.
The ancient concept of it goes like this:
In darkness, one cannot see well. In light, everything is exposed. In darkness everything is hidden. In light, everything is open. Thus, light becomes a symbol for knowledge, for truth that was otherwise unknown and for personal openness.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Justice and Traffic
In my opinion, justice is the societal responsibility to make sure everyone has the opportunity to meet their needs. This does not mean that society has to meet everyone's needs, but they need to give them the opportunity to do it for themselves. If they are unable to meet basic needs on their own then society, out of mercy, might help them, but justice is giving everyone opportunity.
People's needs vary greatly, but the basic category of needs are the same for everyone: everyone needs food, shelter, warmth, a place to go to the bathroom, connection with others, basic health, a certain amount of pleasure, security, inner peace, and some respect. No one can be promised any of these things, but they can be assured that nothing would block them from receiving any of them.
Where I think our society has gone wrong is the decision to micro-manage rather than make the big decisions that would be good for everyone. A controversial example is traffic laws. We have a whole system of traffic, a combination of motorized vehicles, bikes and pedestrians, and everyone has to know the complex system or else people could be injured or die. If this system is to be safe at all, then it must be micromanaged carefully and with precision.
However, I wonder if a more rational and just decision would be to just make motorized vehicles over a certain weight illegal, except on personal property. We weren't meant to have two ton appendages to our body-- we just aren't careful enough. And the system as a whole is a failure. Simply because we allow large motorized vehicles, 43,000 people a year die in the U.S. And two and a half million people are injured per year. That's almost one percent of our population.
Micromanaging doesn't seem to work. We just spend more money and aggrivation trying to force people to follow a complex system that changes all the time. I don't think humanity is smart enough for all that.
People's needs vary greatly, but the basic category of needs are the same for everyone: everyone needs food, shelter, warmth, a place to go to the bathroom, connection with others, basic health, a certain amount of pleasure, security, inner peace, and some respect. No one can be promised any of these things, but they can be assured that nothing would block them from receiving any of them.
Where I think our society has gone wrong is the decision to micro-manage rather than make the big decisions that would be good for everyone. A controversial example is traffic laws. We have a whole system of traffic, a combination of motorized vehicles, bikes and pedestrians, and everyone has to know the complex system or else people could be injured or die. If this system is to be safe at all, then it must be micromanaged carefully and with precision.
However, I wonder if a more rational and just decision would be to just make motorized vehicles over a certain weight illegal, except on personal property. We weren't meant to have two ton appendages to our body-- we just aren't careful enough. And the system as a whole is a failure. Simply because we allow large motorized vehicles, 43,000 people a year die in the U.S. And two and a half million people are injured per year. That's almost one percent of our population.
Micromanaging doesn't seem to work. We just spend more money and aggrivation trying to force people to follow a complex system that changes all the time. I don't think humanity is smart enough for all that.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Pornography
Somasoul posted some excellent thoughts on pornography here:
http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/2008/07/05/owning-women-youve-never-met/#comments
My thoughts in response are as follows:
Somasoul, I think you’re dead wrong.
In your “topic” list, you put “dumb stuff” as well as other topics– and porn isn’t dumb at all.
It is deadly.
I was exposed to it at 12 and it changed my sexuality for the worse for the rest of my life. The man who showed me this shit was thinking he was doing me a favor. But instead he hurt my future sexuality, by establishing sexual patterns and expectations that would be destructive for my future spouse and I and took years to overcome. In some ways, I am still overcoming it.
Not only that, as Prism Magazine recently pointed out, in the modern day, porn is intimately linked to sex slaves and prostitutes. No matter what they claim in porn sites, pornogrphy is simply glorified prostitution, and often glorified sex slavery, with the ones paying for the act to be performed are thousands of miles away from the acts they pay for.
Next time anyone pays for porn, he needs to remember that he is paying for a prostitute and possibly perpetuating slavery.
One last comment on the sexual revolution: We need to remember that the revolution wasn’t only for women. Yes, there was a lot of freedom for women to do as they please, sexually and certainly there is much more opportunity for a woman to express her sexual needs that there never was before.
But for many men, the sexual revolution was just a new lever to get more sex and to be able to openly speak about their “needs”. For women, the sexual revolution was freedom. For many men, it was slavery to their own desires and addictions.
Steve K
http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/2008/07/05/owning-women-youve-never-met/#comments
My thoughts in response are as follows:
Somasoul, I think you’re dead wrong.
In your “topic” list, you put “dumb stuff” as well as other topics– and porn isn’t dumb at all.
It is deadly.
I was exposed to it at 12 and it changed my sexuality for the worse for the rest of my life. The man who showed me this shit was thinking he was doing me a favor. But instead he hurt my future sexuality, by establishing sexual patterns and expectations that would be destructive for my future spouse and I and took years to overcome. In some ways, I am still overcoming it.
Not only that, as Prism Magazine recently pointed out, in the modern day, porn is intimately linked to sex slaves and prostitutes. No matter what they claim in porn sites, pornogrphy is simply glorified prostitution, and often glorified sex slavery, with the ones paying for the act to be performed are thousands of miles away from the acts they pay for.
Next time anyone pays for porn, he needs to remember that he is paying for a prostitute and possibly perpetuating slavery.
One last comment on the sexual revolution: We need to remember that the revolution wasn’t only for women. Yes, there was a lot of freedom for women to do as they please, sexually and certainly there is much more opportunity for a woman to express her sexual needs that there never was before.
But for many men, the sexual revolution was just a new lever to get more sex and to be able to openly speak about their “needs”. For women, the sexual revolution was freedom. For many men, it was slavery to their own desires and addictions.
Steve K
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Structural Outreach Support
Hi Steve,
Is being "missional" primarily a PNMC thing or a congregational thing? I've always thought the rise
of the term "missional" corresponded with a movement away from agency and
denomination-level mission activity and towards congregational activity. In
other words, "being missional" is something we all need to take responsibility
for at the local level, not expecting higher-level organizations to do all the
mission work on our behalf.
Shalom,
Dave
Dave, you bring up an excellent point, and I think it gets to the heart of our disagreement about the ODC and other missional issues. I'm not talking about my one word I wish to add to the Bylaws. I want to see what others have to say before I support that. I would like to continue the ideological conversation you began:
You see the issue of being "missional" as being centered in congregations. And I am firmly of the opinion that this is not enough. And I will now spend a lot of words telling you why.
Of course, congregations must be missional to survive. They must draw new folks in, because "bedroom evangelism" (as Nelson so politely put it) can only go so far, especially when we find that our children leave our congregation or our church, for one reason or another. So congregations must learn how to be missional and to be structured that way.
But this is what I've seen:
Human beings get culturally and idealistaclly "stuck" in certain patterns. There is just something that we see as "right" and there is just no other way to do it. Studies have been done (who pays for these things, I don't know) that indicate that, with few exceptions, by the time we are 30 we know what kind of music we like and that opinion won't change. And what we like and are used to, in the human psyche, becomes "the good" in our mind and anything else is "less than good."
How does this work in a congregation? Well, a congregation is made up of, usually, like minded folks who are in agreement as to what is "the good" and are very conservative (read: stubborn) about changing that which they consider "the good". So when others come to the church and indicate that something else might be "the good", then there is a disagreement, often sharp. Sometimes the congregation shifts, like Zion has so many times. Sometimes, if there is a church split-- again, we can look at Zion and her various offshoots. And sometimes, the congregation sticks to their guns, so to speak, and thus just pushes those with new ideas out. That third kind of congregation ends up dying with the members that have been strong against change from what they say is "the good."
I am not saying that any of these options are bad. But what I am saying is that if we are to keep the good traditions we have-- which we should-- and are to develp new traditions-- which we should-- then it is highly unlikey to happen WITHIN a congregation. It usually happens in a new congregation, such as Anawim or Old Growth, Rusty and Mary Lou Bonham's new, possibly Mennonite, congregation. Anawim at first tried to be a part of an existing congregation, but because our new idea was not part of "the good" in the established congregation, we were pushed out and forced to be a separate congregation. All this is good. And all this is necessary.
Thus, being missional cannot be seen as happening within congregations.
Within the PNMC, I have been trying to promote a model of congregational mission in which the new "good" might be able to exist parallel, but not joined to, existing congregations. This would mean that a congregation might sponsor a new and different congregation, perhaps under their roof. But in promoting this and seeing it happen at times, I find that usually the established congregation ends up pushing the new congregation out because the new congregation is seen to threaten the existing one, even if only ideologically.
Existing congregations tend to be conservative. And so it is my opinion that, most of the time, the conference must support new congregations. This does not mean financial support, except perhaps for some small "seed" money just to help a new congregation through a difficult period. However, the conference must be there to support new congregations, to welcome them, to honor them, to treat them as equals, to pray for them, to give them significance, to give them community. Otherwise there will be very little mission, because most established congregations are ill equipped-- nay, even resistant-- to be missional.
The church/conference should be the place where congregations of different cultural, ethnic, and theological traditions should meet and support each other, recongnizing Christ in each other's tradition. The conference should also put limits on this, determing what is and is not part of the church (this is a big disagreement, I understand, but we aren't ready to accept Buddhist monestaries as a Mennonite congregation, I believe). AND if the conference is to be a place of diversity, then they must support new congregations, because established congregations have a hard time with this.
The conference does this because we want to support brothers and sisters in Christ. The conference does this because we know that to survive as a conference, we must welcome new members. The conference does this because Christ is not limited to our old traditions.
We must allow congregations to stick to their old traditions, if that is what helps them be a community. But we also need to recognize that congregations that stick to ONLY the old traditions will, eventually, die out. Congregations, as organizations, only have a limited life. But if we as a whole entity are missional, we can extend that life to the next generation.
So, I hope you see, Dave, that my persistence in trying to keep the PNMC as an entity, missional, is, in my mind, for the survival of the PNMC itself.
I hope we'll be able to continue this conversation.
Steve K
Is being "missional" primarily a PNMC thing or a congregational thing? I've always thought the rise
of the term "missional" corresponded with a movement away from agency and
denomination-level mission activity and towards congregational activity. In
other words, "being missional" is something we all need to take responsibility
for at the local level, not expecting higher-level organizations to do all the
mission work on our behalf.
Shalom,
Dave
Dave, you bring up an excellent point, and I think it gets to the heart of our disagreement about the ODC and other missional issues. I'm not talking about my one word I wish to add to the Bylaws. I want to see what others have to say before I support that. I would like to continue the ideological conversation you began:
You see the issue of being "missional" as being centered in congregations. And I am firmly of the opinion that this is not enough. And I will now spend a lot of words telling you why.
Of course, congregations must be missional to survive. They must draw new folks in, because "bedroom evangelism" (as Nelson so politely put it) can only go so far, especially when we find that our children leave our congregation or our church, for one reason or another. So congregations must learn how to be missional and to be structured that way.
But this is what I've seen:
Human beings get culturally and idealistaclly "stuck" in certain patterns. There is just something that we see as "right" and there is just no other way to do it. Studies have been done (who pays for these things, I don't know) that indicate that, with few exceptions, by the time we are 30 we know what kind of music we like and that opinion won't change. And what we like and are used to, in the human psyche, becomes "the good" in our mind and anything else is "less than good."
How does this work in a congregation? Well, a congregation is made up of, usually, like minded folks who are in agreement as to what is "the good" and are very conservative (read: stubborn) about changing that which they consider "the good". So when others come to the church and indicate that something else might be "the good", then there is a disagreement, often sharp. Sometimes the congregation shifts, like Zion has so many times. Sometimes, if there is a church split-- again, we can look at Zion and her various offshoots. And sometimes, the congregation sticks to their guns, so to speak, and thus just pushes those with new ideas out. That third kind of congregation ends up dying with the members that have been strong against change from what they say is "the good."
I am not saying that any of these options are bad. But what I am saying is that if we are to keep the good traditions we have-- which we should-- and are to develp new traditions-- which we should-- then it is highly unlikey to happen WITHIN a congregation. It usually happens in a new congregation, such as Anawim or Old Growth, Rusty and Mary Lou Bonham's new, possibly Mennonite, congregation. Anawim at first tried to be a part of an existing congregation, but because our new idea was not part of "the good" in the established congregation, we were pushed out and forced to be a separate congregation. All this is good. And all this is necessary.
Thus, being missional cannot be seen as happening within congregations.
Within the PNMC, I have been trying to promote a model of congregational mission in which the new "good" might be able to exist parallel, but not joined to, existing congregations. This would mean that a congregation might sponsor a new and different congregation, perhaps under their roof. But in promoting this and seeing it happen at times, I find that usually the established congregation ends up pushing the new congregation out because the new congregation is seen to threaten the existing one, even if only ideologically.
Existing congregations tend to be conservative. And so it is my opinion that, most of the time, the conference must support new congregations. This does not mean financial support, except perhaps for some small "seed" money just to help a new congregation through a difficult period. However, the conference must be there to support new congregations, to welcome them, to honor them, to treat them as equals, to pray for them, to give them significance, to give them community. Otherwise there will be very little mission, because most established congregations are ill equipped-- nay, even resistant-- to be missional.
The church/conference should be the place where congregations of different cultural, ethnic, and theological traditions should meet and support each other, recongnizing Christ in each other's tradition. The conference should also put limits on this, determing what is and is not part of the church (this is a big disagreement, I understand, but we aren't ready to accept Buddhist monestaries as a Mennonite congregation, I believe). AND if the conference is to be a place of diversity, then they must support new congregations, because established congregations have a hard time with this.
The conference does this because we want to support brothers and sisters in Christ. The conference does this because we know that to survive as a conference, we must welcome new members. The conference does this because Christ is not limited to our old traditions.
We must allow congregations to stick to their old traditions, if that is what helps them be a community. But we also need to recognize that congregations that stick to ONLY the old traditions will, eventually, die out. Congregations, as organizations, only have a limited life. But if we as a whole entity are missional, we can extend that life to the next generation.
So, I hope you see, Dave, that my persistence in trying to keep the PNMC as an entity, missional, is, in my mind, for the survival of the PNMC itself.
I hope we'll be able to continue this conversation.
Steve K
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Critical Thinking and Faith
Is critical thinking in opposition to Christian faith and practice? -Wayne M
Critical thinking is a life skill, not a school one. We could learn it anywhere. I began my process of critical thinking in a poetry class and reading Francis Schaeffer as a high schooler. I teach my children critical thinking by questioning advertisements and by presenting them with straw men that I expect them to knock down. I teach critical thinking in my Bible studies by asking people to tell me what the text says, not their theology, no matter how orthodox it is.
If critical thinking is a value-- one that I affirm strongly, and, it seems most of us here do-- we must also remember that it is not a biblical requirment. If someone has a simple faith, we must let them have it.
But I hope for our children, that we expect more of them. In our society of pluralism, we need to look beyond the facade to what is really being said. We've got to be smarter than the people around us if we are going to perpetuate the gospel to the next century, let alone the next millenium.
I do think that God strongly disaproves of faith that isn't thought out.
First of all, He disaproves of faith that is misplaced. Not just misplaced in worshipping other gods, although in ancient society that wouldn't necessarily be a given. The logic would be-- "If we worship two gods we get the benefits of BOTH!" But also we could try to worship an image as an "assist" to worshipping God-- that's a no-no. Or we could make something unholy by our attempt to be respectful (like II Sam. 6). In other words, we can't have faith simply because it SEEMS faithful to do something. We have to do it according to the commands of God. Well, to do the commands of God, we have to examine the Scriptures to find out what they really say, like the noble Bereans (Acts 17:11)
Also, we have to examine the logical consequences of our faith ahead of time. Jesus said that we have to "count the cost" (luke 14) before we follow Him to see if we can truly accept the conequences. And we have to logic our faith out in practice so that our entire lives are consistent with our faith-- our practice may look different than others (Romans 14-15), but it is still important to figure it out.
I think it is a mistake to say that biblical faith is a "leap" like Kierkegaard did. I rather like to think of it as baby steps that God leads us to, not just with our spirit, but with our mind as well. "Leaps of faith" are usually the precoursor to stupid decisions and even oppression that should never have been done in the name of Jesus.
-Posts found in MennoDiscuss under "The Big MennoDiscuss Education Poll"
Critical thinking is a life skill, not a school one. We could learn it anywhere. I began my process of critical thinking in a poetry class and reading Francis Schaeffer as a high schooler. I teach my children critical thinking by questioning advertisements and by presenting them with straw men that I expect them to knock down. I teach critical thinking in my Bible studies by asking people to tell me what the text says, not their theology, no matter how orthodox it is.
If critical thinking is a value-- one that I affirm strongly, and, it seems most of us here do-- we must also remember that it is not a biblical requirment. If someone has a simple faith, we must let them have it.
But I hope for our children, that we expect more of them. In our society of pluralism, we need to look beyond the facade to what is really being said. We've got to be smarter than the people around us if we are going to perpetuate the gospel to the next century, let alone the next millenium.
I do think that God strongly disaproves of faith that isn't thought out.
First of all, He disaproves of faith that is misplaced. Not just misplaced in worshipping other gods, although in ancient society that wouldn't necessarily be a given. The logic would be-- "If we worship two gods we get the benefits of BOTH!" But also we could try to worship an image as an "assist" to worshipping God-- that's a no-no. Or we could make something unholy by our attempt to be respectful (like II Sam. 6). In other words, we can't have faith simply because it SEEMS faithful to do something. We have to do it according to the commands of God. Well, to do the commands of God, we have to examine the Scriptures to find out what they really say, like the noble Bereans (Acts 17:11)
Also, we have to examine the logical consequences of our faith ahead of time. Jesus said that we have to "count the cost" (luke 14) before we follow Him to see if we can truly accept the conequences. And we have to logic our faith out in practice so that our entire lives are consistent with our faith-- our practice may look different than others (Romans 14-15), but it is still important to figure it out.
I think it is a mistake to say that biblical faith is a "leap" like Kierkegaard did. I rather like to think of it as baby steps that God leads us to, not just with our spirit, but with our mind as well. "Leaps of faith" are usually the precoursor to stupid decisions and even oppression that should never have been done in the name of Jesus.
-Posts found in MennoDiscuss under "The Big MennoDiscuss Education Poll"
Are Muslims the Enemy of Christians?
There are a number of points I want to make about the general assumption of Americans and others who see people being oppressed by the Muslims:
1. The Qur'an is usually overinterpreted by both terrorists and opponents to Muslims. If you read it carefully, in chronological order, it is the book of an OT prophet, affirming the oneness of God who was attacked by his enemies and later by those he felt to be his friends. The attacking he promotes is only opposed to polytheists only. The book goes out of its way a number of times speaking of the brotherhood between Muslims and "the people of the book", namely Jews and Christians. Muhummad ended up being rejected by the Jews, but still wanted to give them their spiritual place as brothers to Muslims. Yes, they enslaved whole peoples (which the Bible is strictly opposed to-- see the first couple chapters of Amos), and they destroyed other peoples, but they mostly saw these peoples as polytheists. The Christians in the lands they conquered they did not forcably convert, but allowed to live in their lands, as Christians.
2. The worst sin in the Muslim idea is that of "shirk"-- or giving any place to any created being beside God. This is why they are so opposed to Sonship language for Jesus, although they see him as one of the greatest prophets, the son of virgin Mary and most have a tradition of Jesus returning to rule the earth. They feel that their task as a people is to eradicate any form of polytheism and idolatry. To have a picture of God or of Muhammad, God's "greatest prophet" is a great sin because of the fear to worship the image instead of God alone.
3. There is too much power being given to fringe Muslim groups by their enemies. Bin Laden isn't just a Muslim fundamentalist, he is also a Marxist. Most Muslims are opposed to his ideals, especially that of considering any Muslim who works with the West a promoter of Satanic ideals, as well as his decades-old call to violent revolution. This is not to say that Muslims are peaceful-- they will make war when they need to defend themselves-- but they don't think that killing Muslims or initiating violence is the right way. Unfortunately, in seeing Muslims or the Qur'an as the great enemy of the Christian faith, we alienate those whom we should be giving the gospel to, and give credence to the revolutionary Muslims ideas.
4. Again, Muslims need to know the truth about Jesus. That is most important. What most Muslims and Christians do not know, though, is how much truth about Jesus that is in the Qu'ran itself. Beyond what I said above about Jesus in the Qur'an, the Qur'an also says that Jesus is the Word of God, the Messiah and that he died and rose again (in the original Arabic). This information is being used to evangelize Muslims throughout the world. One of the greatest church plant efforts in the Muslim world has been started on this premise, and thousands of Muslims are coming to Jesus-- not just in a revival meeting, but in connecting with other Muslims who now pray, "Allah is God and Jesus is his Messiah" five times a day. When we focus on the wrong issues-- painting all of Islam like a fringe group, labeling Muhammad or the Qu'ran as "evil", labeling Allah as a "moon god", highlighting the violence of some Muslims rather than the gracious hospitality and brotherhood of most Muslims-- then we lose the opportunity to truly give Muslims the truth of Jesus.
1. The Qur'an is usually overinterpreted by both terrorists and opponents to Muslims. If you read it carefully, in chronological order, it is the book of an OT prophet, affirming the oneness of God who was attacked by his enemies and later by those he felt to be his friends. The attacking he promotes is only opposed to polytheists only. The book goes out of its way a number of times speaking of the brotherhood between Muslims and "the people of the book", namely Jews and Christians. Muhummad ended up being rejected by the Jews, but still wanted to give them their spiritual place as brothers to Muslims. Yes, they enslaved whole peoples (which the Bible is strictly opposed to-- see the first couple chapters of Amos), and they destroyed other peoples, but they mostly saw these peoples as polytheists. The Christians in the lands they conquered they did not forcably convert, but allowed to live in their lands, as Christians.
2. The worst sin in the Muslim idea is that of "shirk"-- or giving any place to any created being beside God. This is why they are so opposed to Sonship language for Jesus, although they see him as one of the greatest prophets, the son of virgin Mary and most have a tradition of Jesus returning to rule the earth. They feel that their task as a people is to eradicate any form of polytheism and idolatry. To have a picture of God or of Muhammad, God's "greatest prophet" is a great sin because of the fear to worship the image instead of God alone.
3. There is too much power being given to fringe Muslim groups by their enemies. Bin Laden isn't just a Muslim fundamentalist, he is also a Marxist. Most Muslims are opposed to his ideals, especially that of considering any Muslim who works with the West a promoter of Satanic ideals, as well as his decades-old call to violent revolution. This is not to say that Muslims are peaceful-- they will make war when they need to defend themselves-- but they don't think that killing Muslims or initiating violence is the right way. Unfortunately, in seeing Muslims or the Qur'an as the great enemy of the Christian faith, we alienate those whom we should be giving the gospel to, and give credence to the revolutionary Muslims ideas.
4. Again, Muslims need to know the truth about Jesus. That is most important. What most Muslims and Christians do not know, though, is how much truth about Jesus that is in the Qu'ran itself. Beyond what I said above about Jesus in the Qur'an, the Qur'an also says that Jesus is the Word of God, the Messiah and that he died and rose again (in the original Arabic). This information is being used to evangelize Muslims throughout the world. One of the greatest church plant efforts in the Muslim world has been started on this premise, and thousands of Muslims are coming to Jesus-- not just in a revival meeting, but in connecting with other Muslims who now pray, "Allah is God and Jesus is his Messiah" five times a day. When we focus on the wrong issues-- painting all of Islam like a fringe group, labeling Muhammad or the Qu'ran as "evil", labeling Allah as a "moon god", highlighting the violence of some Muslims rather than the gracious hospitality and brotherhood of most Muslims-- then we lose the opportunity to truly give Muslims the truth of Jesus.
Is America A Christian Nation?
Is America A Christian Nation? -Kevin M.
The U.S. is not nor ever was a Christian nation. To have freedom of religion which the Consitution promises is to be able to worship a different god than the Christian one. It is the possibility of worshipping the god one wants to worship with an image of creation. It is the possibility of taking the Lord's name in vain, to speak falsehood in the name of a god.
This is why I find it amusing that justices and citizens try to promote the ten commandments as the law of the land when they are actually in direct opposition to the constitution.
The country was founded on a rebellion against proper authority, when the way of the cross is to submit and to allow God to undermine oppressive authorities.
This is not to say that the country didn't have Christian elements-- certainly it was influenced by Christianity. But on some very basic principles it stands against a Christian theocracy.
And for that I am profoundly glad. Honestly.
Because of the U.S. capitalistic view of religion, true followers of Jesus can stand in stark contrast to all other religions, including that of false Christianity. There is a greater opportunity to share the true gospel in this country that other "Christian" countries do not have. If everyone is a "christian" in a country, then no one needs to repent or to be saved. In our country, we have the freedom to have different ideas, to "convert" others and to share the true message of Jesus without worrying about whether it agrees with some leader's limited idea of what Jesus was saying.
And with the U.S. not being a Christian nation, it also can understand itself as an imperfect secular state, able to make mistakes and to apologize for them because the state's decisions is not the will of God in Christ.
At least, ideally, that's how it should be.
-Posted in MySpace, Christians for Social Action group
The U.S. is not nor ever was a Christian nation. To have freedom of religion which the Consitution promises is to be able to worship a different god than the Christian one. It is the possibility of worshipping the god one wants to worship with an image of creation. It is the possibility of taking the Lord's name in vain, to speak falsehood in the name of a god.
This is why I find it amusing that justices and citizens try to promote the ten commandments as the law of the land when they are actually in direct opposition to the constitution.
The country was founded on a rebellion against proper authority, when the way of the cross is to submit and to allow God to undermine oppressive authorities.
This is not to say that the country didn't have Christian elements-- certainly it was influenced by Christianity. But on some very basic principles it stands against a Christian theocracy.
And for that I am profoundly glad. Honestly.
Because of the U.S. capitalistic view of religion, true followers of Jesus can stand in stark contrast to all other religions, including that of false Christianity. There is a greater opportunity to share the true gospel in this country that other "Christian" countries do not have. If everyone is a "christian" in a country, then no one needs to repent or to be saved. In our country, we have the freedom to have different ideas, to "convert" others and to share the true message of Jesus without worrying about whether it agrees with some leader's limited idea of what Jesus was saying.
And with the U.S. not being a Christian nation, it also can understand itself as an imperfect secular state, able to make mistakes and to apologize for them because the state's decisions is not the will of God in Christ.
At least, ideally, that's how it should be.
-Posted in MySpace, Christians for Social Action group
Thursday, April 24, 2008
The Church And The World
What is supposed to be the connection between the church and the world?
-Josh
The church is to be a community providing an example of justice and righteousness-- "You are a city on a hill"
The church is to be a prophet, explaining to the world of God’s blessing and punishment and how to obtain God’s blessing through Jesus’ life and teaching-- "I have not come to judge the world, but that the world might be saved"
The church is to be involved in the world, displaying God’s love and forgiveness to the marginalized and hopeless. "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
(Posted on Christians For Social Justice on MySpace)
http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=100078449&Mytoken=12373CC7-B1B3-42A2-9BA5940C71BF04B492345519
-Josh
The church is to be a community providing an example of justice and righteousness-- "You are a city on a hill"
The church is to be a prophet, explaining to the world of God’s blessing and punishment and how to obtain God’s blessing through Jesus’ life and teaching-- "I have not come to judge the world, but that the world might be saved"
The church is to be involved in the world, displaying God’s love and forgiveness to the marginalized and hopeless. "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
(Posted on Christians For Social Justice on MySpace)
http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=100078449&Mytoken=12373CC7-B1B3-42A2-9BA5940C71BF04B492345519
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Unrequested Counsel for a Seminary Student
I wrote this to a seminary student who was offended by a remark I made that it was a heresy for the church to require pastors to attend seminary. Unfortunately, he never left me an email or anything for me to contact him back. So I am going to inflict my letter on you. Hopefully somebody gets something out of it.
Dear Adam:
I am sorry if you were offended at my comments about the requirements for seminary. It is not that I think a seminary is a bad place to be, I just think that there is much in it that shouldn’t be requirements for ministry. Yet most denominations require seminary for their pastors to be ordained. In fact, for some denominations, a seminary education almost guarantees you a place in ministry. This situation causes many of us—whether in or out of pastoral ministry—to think more highly of those who are educated than the Bible says we ought.
It says in Scripture that “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” In other words, we often get an education to prove our self worth. This is why we get degrees and want to get good grades, to prove that we have accomplished our tasks of learning and obtaining knowledge. But that is not the basis of ministry. The basis of ministry is self-sacrifice, the giving of who we are into people’s needs, action based on compassion.
This does not mean that an education is wrong. It’s fine. It is especially helpful in our society when people respect those who have knowledge. But we must set aside the unspoken assumptions about this education: that seminary will prepare us to do ministry, which is based on love, not knowledge. An education is an aide for some, but it is not a requirement for a ministry of love. Knowledge is an assistant in preaching and in understanding both doctrine and the history of doctrine. But this is all background, not the real thing.
When I was striving after my degrees in order to be ready for ministry, there are certain things that I wish someone would have told me, to put things in perspective, as I was in my studies. Some of them I learned in school, some of them I learned later. I am going to share them with you now, even though you didn’t ask. Perhaps they will be helpful to you, perhaps not. But since I’ve been a pastor for some ten years, I’ve learned some stuff and yet I still remember what it was to be a student. So, here’s the advice that I would give myself as a divinity student:
a. It’s all about Jesus. The history of doctrine and the various arguments about Bible passages is significant, but if we lose sight of Jesus—His life, His ministry, His death and resurrection, all for us to imitate—then we have lost what is most important. In the midst of our discussions about the rapture or the nature of the soul, we must not get distracted from the One whom we are to serve and the One whom we are to be. Ministry isn’t about knowing about Jesus, but living Him out.
b. My knowledge is as apt to be a distraction as a boon. Just as the man with a hammer sees every problem as a nail, so the man with book knowledge assumes every problem can be fixed with facts. This is rarely true. If we were engineers or mechanics, then the facts are all important. But when working with people, it is most important that we communicate the truth, not have it. And to communicate we need to listen more than talk. We need to know the one to whom we are communicating, and only then will we succeed in communicating successfully. Thus, we must know people more than we know facts. Facts are easy, people are hard.
c. The end of our schooling is the beginning of our education. Part of a seminary education is to help us understand the gospel in a deep way. However, the best that seminary does is give us the tools to learn. It is the Spirit that leads us, after the schooling, to use our skills learned to understand the Truths that will be significant for us. Graduation is our entrance into the School of the Spirit.
d. Ministry is not based on what we know, how much money we have or the position we hold. Ministry is sourced by the Spirit of Jesus. Note that when Jesus was preparing for ministry, he didn’t go to school, but to the wilderness. The only knowledge he obtained is how to trust the Lord. To heal others, he did not need theology, but dependence. This does not mean that He did not have knowledge, as He did. But the key to his ministry was power and knowledge from the Father, not the power or knowledge from humanity.
e. The goal of education is not good grades or even graduation. It is to learn what Jesus wants us to learn. This may mean that Jesus will want us to not spend so much time on grades as people. Or He may want us to share the time of learning with those in need we could assist. The time of learning is in God’s hands, not the educators.
f. Seminaries are based on the Platonic model of universities. The assumption in that model is that if one has knowledge, then one will act on that knowledge. However, we know that the Pharisees had knowledge, but the didn’t act rightly on that knowledge. Jesus’ method of education is based on some teaching and some modeling. Most seminaries give an opportunity for practicum, but it may be difficult to find a model. Look for someone to model yourself after, who is already doing the ministry you think you might do—and so this would likely not be a professor. Ask if you could spend time with them, just observing. This may seem weird, but it is how we learn, by imitation, not conceptually.
g. Remember this: our time in seminary does not make us ministers. And a true minister is not a professional. There are people who have never had a college class who will be better ministers in some ways than we will ever be. We must remain humble, not seeking the better salary, not seeking recognition, not seeking the larger church, but instead only seeking the will of God. We need to remember that Jesus will laud the ministers without titles, without a salary, without glory, without any recognition whatsoever, but have been faithful, than the ministers who have all of that. So let us seek the praise of Jesus, not the things of the world.
h. A minister is not just a servant, but a slave. The term Jesus uses for his most honored leaders is slave, the least, the insignificant. So Jesus’ plan for us, if we are truly to obtain His greatness in ministry, is to do the dirtiest tasks, hang with the nastiest people, live in the worst parts of town in order to accomplish the greatest work. We may never get anything for it—in fact, our only reward may be rejection by all whom we hold important in our lives—but it is what Jesus seeks for us that is most important. Perhaps we will also get a good salary, perhaps we will also get a large church. SOMEBODY’S got to do those ministries. But even if we do, we must remain real—still hang with the lowly, still do the nasty tasks. Still be the slave.
In order to make our time in seminary preparation for our life in Jesus, we must keep our mind on the goal—being like Jesus at all times, even while we are learning. Pray that we will be Jesus, not just learn about Him.
If you’re still reading, Adam, thanks for listening. Hope I didn’t offend you more, but I hope that you can get something from what I have learned.
May the Lord grant you to obtain and make peace,
Steve Kimes
Dear Adam:
I am sorry if you were offended at my comments about the requirements for seminary. It is not that I think a seminary is a bad place to be, I just think that there is much in it that shouldn’t be requirements for ministry. Yet most denominations require seminary for their pastors to be ordained. In fact, for some denominations, a seminary education almost guarantees you a place in ministry. This situation causes many of us—whether in or out of pastoral ministry—to think more highly of those who are educated than the Bible says we ought.
It says in Scripture that “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” In other words, we often get an education to prove our self worth. This is why we get degrees and want to get good grades, to prove that we have accomplished our tasks of learning and obtaining knowledge. But that is not the basis of ministry. The basis of ministry is self-sacrifice, the giving of who we are into people’s needs, action based on compassion.
This does not mean that an education is wrong. It’s fine. It is especially helpful in our society when people respect those who have knowledge. But we must set aside the unspoken assumptions about this education: that seminary will prepare us to do ministry, which is based on love, not knowledge. An education is an aide for some, but it is not a requirement for a ministry of love. Knowledge is an assistant in preaching and in understanding both doctrine and the history of doctrine. But this is all background, not the real thing.
When I was striving after my degrees in order to be ready for ministry, there are certain things that I wish someone would have told me, to put things in perspective, as I was in my studies. Some of them I learned in school, some of them I learned later. I am going to share them with you now, even though you didn’t ask. Perhaps they will be helpful to you, perhaps not. But since I’ve been a pastor for some ten years, I’ve learned some stuff and yet I still remember what it was to be a student. So, here’s the advice that I would give myself as a divinity student:
a. It’s all about Jesus. The history of doctrine and the various arguments about Bible passages is significant, but if we lose sight of Jesus—His life, His ministry, His death and resurrection, all for us to imitate—then we have lost what is most important. In the midst of our discussions about the rapture or the nature of the soul, we must not get distracted from the One whom we are to serve and the One whom we are to be. Ministry isn’t about knowing about Jesus, but living Him out.
b. My knowledge is as apt to be a distraction as a boon. Just as the man with a hammer sees every problem as a nail, so the man with book knowledge assumes every problem can be fixed with facts. This is rarely true. If we were engineers or mechanics, then the facts are all important. But when working with people, it is most important that we communicate the truth, not have it. And to communicate we need to listen more than talk. We need to know the one to whom we are communicating, and only then will we succeed in communicating successfully. Thus, we must know people more than we know facts. Facts are easy, people are hard.
c. The end of our schooling is the beginning of our education. Part of a seminary education is to help us understand the gospel in a deep way. However, the best that seminary does is give us the tools to learn. It is the Spirit that leads us, after the schooling, to use our skills learned to understand the Truths that will be significant for us. Graduation is our entrance into the School of the Spirit.
d. Ministry is not based on what we know, how much money we have or the position we hold. Ministry is sourced by the Spirit of Jesus. Note that when Jesus was preparing for ministry, he didn’t go to school, but to the wilderness. The only knowledge he obtained is how to trust the Lord. To heal others, he did not need theology, but dependence. This does not mean that He did not have knowledge, as He did. But the key to his ministry was power and knowledge from the Father, not the power or knowledge from humanity.
e. The goal of education is not good grades or even graduation. It is to learn what Jesus wants us to learn. This may mean that Jesus will want us to not spend so much time on grades as people. Or He may want us to share the time of learning with those in need we could assist. The time of learning is in God’s hands, not the educators.
f. Seminaries are based on the Platonic model of universities. The assumption in that model is that if one has knowledge, then one will act on that knowledge. However, we know that the Pharisees had knowledge, but the didn’t act rightly on that knowledge. Jesus’ method of education is based on some teaching and some modeling. Most seminaries give an opportunity for practicum, but it may be difficult to find a model. Look for someone to model yourself after, who is already doing the ministry you think you might do—and so this would likely not be a professor. Ask if you could spend time with them, just observing. This may seem weird, but it is how we learn, by imitation, not conceptually.
g. Remember this: our time in seminary does not make us ministers. And a true minister is not a professional. There are people who have never had a college class who will be better ministers in some ways than we will ever be. We must remain humble, not seeking the better salary, not seeking recognition, not seeking the larger church, but instead only seeking the will of God. We need to remember that Jesus will laud the ministers without titles, without a salary, without glory, without any recognition whatsoever, but have been faithful, than the ministers who have all of that. So let us seek the praise of Jesus, not the things of the world.
h. A minister is not just a servant, but a slave. The term Jesus uses for his most honored leaders is slave, the least, the insignificant. So Jesus’ plan for us, if we are truly to obtain His greatness in ministry, is to do the dirtiest tasks, hang with the nastiest people, live in the worst parts of town in order to accomplish the greatest work. We may never get anything for it—in fact, our only reward may be rejection by all whom we hold important in our lives—but it is what Jesus seeks for us that is most important. Perhaps we will also get a good salary, perhaps we will also get a large church. SOMEBODY’S got to do those ministries. But even if we do, we must remain real—still hang with the lowly, still do the nasty tasks. Still be the slave.
In order to make our time in seminary preparation for our life in Jesus, we must keep our mind on the goal—being like Jesus at all times, even while we are learning. Pray that we will be Jesus, not just learn about Him.
If you’re still reading, Adam, thanks for listening. Hope I didn’t offend you more, but I hope that you can get something from what I have learned.
May the Lord grant you to obtain and make peace,
Steve Kimes
Real Education
I believe some conservative Christians oppose high education for the exact same reason they oppose public schooling: FEAR
College campuses do challenge traditional values and tend to lean heavily left-ward. All you need to do is sit through an orientation session at a college (even in a fairly conservative area) and you soon will discover that you aren't in Kansas anymore. You learn about tolerance for "alternative" lifestyles, how not to get date raped and where to get free condoms. I wish I still had a copy of the "stop the hate" week events.
There are pressures present on a college campus that you might not find anywhere else. I do not believe that a Christian is not called to cower in fear, but is to confront the culture. It does seem that a whole lot of children raised in a church setting abandon their religion in the four years they were on a college campus.
Before anyone becomes confused about where I stand, I believe that going to college is an excellent opportunity to learn about other people. I take the same stance on college as I do with public schooling: I think it is a good option that will help build a person's perspective. College doesn't create the weak faith, but it does expose weak faith.
Stoltz13
To a certain degree I agree that we should never avoid education because of fear. We are not supposed to separate from the world, or be naive of the world. Yes, we are to be innocent as doves, but also as shrewd as serpants. We cannot truly minister to the world unless we know the world.
But we need to know the world from God's perspective. This is why I do not send my children to public school during grade school. I don't believe that they are established well enough in the worldview of Jesus to be handed over to the world for their education. When it is time, when they understand what we believe and why we live how we do, and also are able to make choices on their own based on what is real and not just because of social pressure, then I send them to school.
As far as college goes, it isn't necessary, but I would encourage my children to go if they wanted or needed to in order to do what God wants them to do.
-Steve K
However, I do wonder if all this sheltering and protecting children is effective for preserving faith... what kind of faith can't stand up to any testing? Is it real faith or just an illusion of faith? Can faith really be preserved?
I for one am not convinced that indoctrinating our children and keeping them isolated from the world will produce any signficant difference in results. True, by keeping them close to home with good social pressure we might be able to get them to appear right on the outside... but is that our goal?
Kinda like the Prodical son vs. the son who stayed home... did the son at home develop as a person by being isolated from harmful influences? Who's faith became greater as that story progressed?
Stoltz
I agree that there is no cause for sheltering our children. However, we also shouldn't thrust our children out into a world of hostility without training or an example.
I homeschool my children in the context of a household and a church where there are drug addicts, mental illness, people threatening my life, deaths, AIDS, conflict-- as well as laughter, hope, prayer and recovery from addiction. So they see my wife and I deal with all of these issues. This is their true schooling, more than Bible studies and math problems.
So I agree. If homeschooling is "sheltering" children from the world, then it is not a full education. But if homeschooling is integrated with exposure to the real world and a Christian response to it, then it is far better than sending a six-year-old to public school and saying, "Okay, now go and deal with it" How can they know unless they are taught?
Steve K
College campuses do challenge traditional values and tend to lean heavily left-ward. All you need to do is sit through an orientation session at a college (even in a fairly conservative area) and you soon will discover that you aren't in Kansas anymore. You learn about tolerance for "alternative" lifestyles, how not to get date raped and where to get free condoms. I wish I still had a copy of the "stop the hate" week events.
There are pressures present on a college campus that you might not find anywhere else. I do not believe that a Christian is not called to cower in fear, but is to confront the culture. It does seem that a whole lot of children raised in a church setting abandon their religion in the four years they were on a college campus.
Before anyone becomes confused about where I stand, I believe that going to college is an excellent opportunity to learn about other people. I take the same stance on college as I do with public schooling: I think it is a good option that will help build a person's perspective. College doesn't create the weak faith, but it does expose weak faith.
Stoltz13
To a certain degree I agree that we should never avoid education because of fear. We are not supposed to separate from the world, or be naive of the world. Yes, we are to be innocent as doves, but also as shrewd as serpants. We cannot truly minister to the world unless we know the world.
But we need to know the world from God's perspective. This is why I do not send my children to public school during grade school. I don't believe that they are established well enough in the worldview of Jesus to be handed over to the world for their education. When it is time, when they understand what we believe and why we live how we do, and also are able to make choices on their own based on what is real and not just because of social pressure, then I send them to school.
As far as college goes, it isn't necessary, but I would encourage my children to go if they wanted or needed to in order to do what God wants them to do.
-Steve K
However, I do wonder if all this sheltering and protecting children is effective for preserving faith... what kind of faith can't stand up to any testing? Is it real faith or just an illusion of faith? Can faith really be preserved?
I for one am not convinced that indoctrinating our children and keeping them isolated from the world will produce any signficant difference in results. True, by keeping them close to home with good social pressure we might be able to get them to appear right on the outside... but is that our goal?
Kinda like the Prodical son vs. the son who stayed home... did the son at home develop as a person by being isolated from harmful influences? Who's faith became greater as that story progressed?
Stoltz
I agree that there is no cause for sheltering our children. However, we also shouldn't thrust our children out into a world of hostility without training or an example.
I homeschool my children in the context of a household and a church where there are drug addicts, mental illness, people threatening my life, deaths, AIDS, conflict-- as well as laughter, hope, prayer and recovery from addiction. So they see my wife and I deal with all of these issues. This is their true schooling, more than Bible studies and math problems.
So I agree. If homeschooling is "sheltering" children from the world, then it is not a full education. But if homeschooling is integrated with exposure to the real world and a Christian response to it, then it is far better than sending a six-year-old to public school and saying, "Okay, now go and deal with it" How can they know unless they are taught?
Steve K
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Fear and Racism
It is a basic principle for all creatures to fear that which is the same size or bigger than them, but different.
I have some pretty large rats in my backyard, and a cat. If the cat sees a rat, he will just let it pass by without even flinching, because they are about the same size. While the cat is made to attack creatures, they are only those that are smaller than them.
But then my cat saw an advantage. The rat was focused on something else for a while, ignoring the cat. So the cat saw that he had the upper hand and attacked the rat, wounding it, playing with it and then killing it.
Thus:
Difference and equal power equates fear.
Fear leads to anxiety
Anxiety seeks advantage over fear.
Anxiety attacts the object of fear.
Those of other race not only look different, but more importantly, they hold to different mores and cultural presuppositions than one. Because those of other race have a population that could potentially harm one’s own race, and it is different, the other race is an object of fear. "They might insist that we follow their ways."-- this translates into core racist language "They have taken over our cities"; "They have conspired to control us economically."; "They will blemish our civilization." These are all statements of anxiety.
Those in fear/anxiety will then seek an advantage-- economically, militarily, politically, etc-- to make themselves "bigger". Once they feel safe, they will attack that which caused them fear. This is primarily to give them and their society freedom from the anxiety they have been feeling. Once the object of anxiety is completely subdued or destroyed, then the original society can feel safe.
This is the pattern you can find in Nazi Germany, in Israel/Palestine and in Rwanda.
If we want to be rid of racial/cultural/social prejudice, we need to create opportunities for open relationship between the opposing groups. In familiarity and relationship, fear disappears. Once both sides recognize the other as humans with needs and desires like them, there is the possibility to compromise for the sake of peace for both sides.
I have some pretty large rats in my backyard, and a cat. If the cat sees a rat, he will just let it pass by without even flinching, because they are about the same size. While the cat is made to attack creatures, they are only those that are smaller than them.
But then my cat saw an advantage. The rat was focused on something else for a while, ignoring the cat. So the cat saw that he had the upper hand and attacked the rat, wounding it, playing with it and then killing it.
Thus:
Difference and equal power equates fear.
Fear leads to anxiety
Anxiety seeks advantage over fear.
Anxiety attacts the object of fear.
Those of other race not only look different, but more importantly, they hold to different mores and cultural presuppositions than one. Because those of other race have a population that could potentially harm one’s own race, and it is different, the other race is an object of fear. "They might insist that we follow their ways."-- this translates into core racist language "They have taken over our cities"; "They have conspired to control us economically."; "They will blemish our civilization." These are all statements of anxiety.
Those in fear/anxiety will then seek an advantage-- economically, militarily, politically, etc-- to make themselves "bigger". Once they feel safe, they will attack that which caused them fear. This is primarily to give them and their society freedom from the anxiety they have been feeling. Once the object of anxiety is completely subdued or destroyed, then the original society can feel safe.
This is the pattern you can find in Nazi Germany, in Israel/Palestine and in Rwanda.
If we want to be rid of racial/cultural/social prejudice, we need to create opportunities for open relationship between the opposing groups. In familiarity and relationship, fear disappears. Once both sides recognize the other as humans with needs and desires like them, there is the possibility to compromise for the sake of peace for both sides.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Are we forced to sin?
"Doubter" posts: "If we are all sinners because of Adam's choice, then are we forced to sin? Do we have no choice BUT to sin? Is this what God arranged from before the world began? And doesn't this make God a manipulator-- He forces us to sin so we have to turn to Him?"
I think current neuroscience illustrates our choice pretty well. It has been proven that most people who are addicts have a genetic "switch" in their brains that makes them an addict. Should a certain enviornmental condition exist, that "switch" is triggered and the person becomes an addict. From that point it is difficult, almost impossible on their own, to stop being an addict. It is something they deal with the rest of their lives.
Even so, this is how our "choice" is of sinning. Adam and Eve were created with a "full" choice, but this does not mean that we do not have choices. We and our parents have the choice to determine what our enviornment is. We may not be able to determine our reaction once we enter that enviornment, but we can make the choice as to whether we go there and connect with those people. Of course, that choice is also limited-- sometimes we are forced by other circumstances to be in circumstances we never would have chosen. Nevertheless, although we are "weak" we still have a choice.
This fits with Scripture. Humanity (read, "adam" in Hebrew) has been given rule over the earth. Every person is given kingship over certain areas. But humanity is no longer one or two people-- it is a complex of control issues. We have multiple rulers over each person-- parents, governors, creditors, police, etc-- and we have a complex system within ourselves which is partly moral and partly a mess of a bunch of desires, some positive, some not so. It seems to me that we have, then, two problems-- we don't know ourselves very well and we don't have control over our situation. This combination causes us to sin.
Is this God's fault? Did God set this up? I think that this is one of the possibilities that God established, but it wasn't necessarily His only plan. It is NEVER God's will or plan for people to sin. He doesn't want his children to rebel against him. But if they do sin, then He has a backup plan.
Are we forced to sin now? I guess the circumstances of our ancestors pretty much made it impossible for anyone's "switch" not to be triggered. We will end up in an enviornment in which we will feel that sin is our best-- and only-- response. Adam is the only one who ever had a full choice without being coerced.
Does this make God a manipulator? Well, yes and no. Adam could have a full choice because he was already in relationship with God. God created Adam to be under His authority. Adam could only be a just ruler if he listened to God and paid attention to God's recommendations. We however, from the time we are born, are under the authority of others who, like Adam, have chosen to make their own moral decisions apart from God's will. And we don't know how messed up this is until our whole lives are shattered because of our sin-- until our desires hit a road block and we realize that we aren't doing what we were made to do.
So what is our best and only choice then? To turn to God-- as we were created to do-- and to repent and to allow God to give us a new start. This happens through Jesus. And when we turn to Jesus we receive the Holy Spirit and become a NEW CREATION. This means that we become like Adam. We then have full, free choices to live in God's will.
So, perhaps, we only have a full, real choice in Jesus. But that is because Jesus is recreating us to BE new Adams. That is where real freedom begins.
-Posted on MennoDiscuss
I think current neuroscience illustrates our choice pretty well. It has been proven that most people who are addicts have a genetic "switch" in their brains that makes them an addict. Should a certain enviornmental condition exist, that "switch" is triggered and the person becomes an addict. From that point it is difficult, almost impossible on their own, to stop being an addict. It is something they deal with the rest of their lives.
Even so, this is how our "choice" is of sinning. Adam and Eve were created with a "full" choice, but this does not mean that we do not have choices. We and our parents have the choice to determine what our enviornment is. We may not be able to determine our reaction once we enter that enviornment, but we can make the choice as to whether we go there and connect with those people. Of course, that choice is also limited-- sometimes we are forced by other circumstances to be in circumstances we never would have chosen. Nevertheless, although we are "weak" we still have a choice.
This fits with Scripture. Humanity (read, "adam" in Hebrew) has been given rule over the earth. Every person is given kingship over certain areas. But humanity is no longer one or two people-- it is a complex of control issues. We have multiple rulers over each person-- parents, governors, creditors, police, etc-- and we have a complex system within ourselves which is partly moral and partly a mess of a bunch of desires, some positive, some not so. It seems to me that we have, then, two problems-- we don't know ourselves very well and we don't have control over our situation. This combination causes us to sin.
Is this God's fault? Did God set this up? I think that this is one of the possibilities that God established, but it wasn't necessarily His only plan. It is NEVER God's will or plan for people to sin. He doesn't want his children to rebel against him. But if they do sin, then He has a backup plan.
Are we forced to sin now? I guess the circumstances of our ancestors pretty much made it impossible for anyone's "switch" not to be triggered. We will end up in an enviornment in which we will feel that sin is our best-- and only-- response. Adam is the only one who ever had a full choice without being coerced.
Does this make God a manipulator? Well, yes and no. Adam could have a full choice because he was already in relationship with God. God created Adam to be under His authority. Adam could only be a just ruler if he listened to God and paid attention to God's recommendations. We however, from the time we are born, are under the authority of others who, like Adam, have chosen to make their own moral decisions apart from God's will. And we don't know how messed up this is until our whole lives are shattered because of our sin-- until our desires hit a road block and we realize that we aren't doing what we were made to do.
So what is our best and only choice then? To turn to God-- as we were created to do-- and to repent and to allow God to give us a new start. This happens through Jesus. And when we turn to Jesus we receive the Holy Spirit and become a NEW CREATION. This means that we become like Adam. We then have full, free choices to live in God's will.
So, perhaps, we only have a full, real choice in Jesus. But that is because Jesus is recreating us to BE new Adams. That is where real freedom begins.
-Posted on MennoDiscuss
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Historical Reliability of the Resurrection
"That is why I would assert that the resurrection must be the “starting point” for the rational seeker and for our apologetic, as it is a fully defensible historic event."
-Wayne
"While I agree in substance with what you have said, I would disagree in detail. The fact is, that the resurrection is only defensible from a biblical perspective, as it is not historically recorded outside of the Bible, with the exception of a highly disputed passage from Josephus, unless you have a source that I am unaware of. Care to expound?"
-GC
GC, I have an issue with you separating a "biblical" perspective from a "historical" one. You are speaking as if the NT aren't ancient documents, historical in their own right. Do they express a theological bias? Sure! But if we are going to deny Jesus' resurrection from the basis of bias, then we can question any historical event on the basis of the bias of their authors. One example I think of is the existence and death of Socrates. Plato and Xenophon are the only documents we have of that death, and they are both clearly biased. So should we deny the event? No, because their biases were different, yet they both agreed upon the same event.
Or what about Julius Caesar's conquering of Gaul? All the first hand witnesses were biased in their writings, but we do not deny the event. Why? Because it offers the best explanation of later events, such as the mixing of Gaulish with Latin to create French, etc.
We have a similar case with the resurrection.
Here are some historical reasons for the resurrection:
1. We have writings of people who claimed to have seen Jesus, resurrected, after he died. One of which is Paul, who also referred to many others who claimed to see Jesus (I Corinthians 15) another is the writer of 1 John.
2. We have many documents that say that there are people who have claimed to see Jesus resurrected, and not just in the NT. Thus it is well known that there were witnesses to Jesus' resurrection, whether those witnesses are declared credible or not. It is on these testimonies that Christianity, a great force in the history of the world, was built. Without these testimonies there is no real cause for Christianity.
3. Many of these witnesses died for their claim, including Paul, Peter, Stephan and many others. If they would have claimed that their testimony was not true, they would have lived. But they held to the fact of Jesus' resurrection through torture and death penalty trials. If a person dies for a cause, it at least means that THEY believed it, whether it is true or not. But in this case, either they experienced the resurrected Jesus or they did not. If they did not experience it, then they could have denied it and so lived. But affirming this experience was worth their lives. Thus their credibility raises. Either they were misled, insane or they truly saw what they said they saw.
4. Were they misled? Did someone tell them a false story? Well, like Paul, they claimed to have seen Jesus in real-life time, not in a vision or dream. This means that they claimed they had a personal experience, not a story told to them. Later witnesses, of course, had to believe the previous witnesses, so they could have been misled, but not the original witnesses.
5. Were they insane? It is possible to have a group hallucination, although very rare. This might be credible if they saw what they expected. But the earliest documents we have all agree that all original witnesses originally denied the belief of Jesus' resurrection, and it was only proved to them by seeing it first hand. For Paul this was a complete turn-around in his life. It does not seem likely that they had a hallucination.
6. Since that time, hundreds of thousands have experienced miracles based on the word of the person who it is claimed to be resurrected. This is not a direct claim of resurrection, but it is a strong affirmation of some kind of unknown power that rests in the person of Jesus, that indicates that there is something more than just a religious story going on here.
7. Given that there is sufficient ancient evidence for an ancient event, the strongest argument against the resurrection is this: "Resurrections simply don't happen. We have never seen a resurrection, therefore resurrections could never have happened." But this argument is an argument against someone else's personal experience based on the lack of personal experience. Just because we have not personally seen the surface of Pluto does not mean that such a surface does not exist. It is easy to deny that which we have not seen, and say that the evidence for it is shaky. But logically it doesn't hold water. We cannot deny what another person saw by saying that we have not seen it. We cannot deny that someone has not felt something because no one we know has ever felt it.
Thus, the fact is, there IS historical basis for the resurrection-- as historically reliable as many other events we have in history that we strongly affirm. And there is realistically only a philosophical presupposition against it.
-A Discussion from MennoDiscuss
-Wayne
"While I agree in substance with what you have said, I would disagree in detail. The fact is, that the resurrection is only defensible from a biblical perspective, as it is not historically recorded outside of the Bible, with the exception of a highly disputed passage from Josephus, unless you have a source that I am unaware of. Care to expound?"
-GC
GC, I have an issue with you separating a "biblical" perspective from a "historical" one. You are speaking as if the NT aren't ancient documents, historical in their own right. Do they express a theological bias? Sure! But if we are going to deny Jesus' resurrection from the basis of bias, then we can question any historical event on the basis of the bias of their authors. One example I think of is the existence and death of Socrates. Plato and Xenophon are the only documents we have of that death, and they are both clearly biased. So should we deny the event? No, because their biases were different, yet they both agreed upon the same event.
Or what about Julius Caesar's conquering of Gaul? All the first hand witnesses were biased in their writings, but we do not deny the event. Why? Because it offers the best explanation of later events, such as the mixing of Gaulish with Latin to create French, etc.
We have a similar case with the resurrection.
Here are some historical reasons for the resurrection:
1. We have writings of people who claimed to have seen Jesus, resurrected, after he died. One of which is Paul, who also referred to many others who claimed to see Jesus (I Corinthians 15) another is the writer of 1 John.
2. We have many documents that say that there are people who have claimed to see Jesus resurrected, and not just in the NT. Thus it is well known that there were witnesses to Jesus' resurrection, whether those witnesses are declared credible or not. It is on these testimonies that Christianity, a great force in the history of the world, was built. Without these testimonies there is no real cause for Christianity.
3. Many of these witnesses died for their claim, including Paul, Peter, Stephan and many others. If they would have claimed that their testimony was not true, they would have lived. But they held to the fact of Jesus' resurrection through torture and death penalty trials. If a person dies for a cause, it at least means that THEY believed it, whether it is true or not. But in this case, either they experienced the resurrected Jesus or they did not. If they did not experience it, then they could have denied it and so lived. But affirming this experience was worth their lives. Thus their credibility raises. Either they were misled, insane or they truly saw what they said they saw.
4. Were they misled? Did someone tell them a false story? Well, like Paul, they claimed to have seen Jesus in real-life time, not in a vision or dream. This means that they claimed they had a personal experience, not a story told to them. Later witnesses, of course, had to believe the previous witnesses, so they could have been misled, but not the original witnesses.
5. Were they insane? It is possible to have a group hallucination, although very rare. This might be credible if they saw what they expected. But the earliest documents we have all agree that all original witnesses originally denied the belief of Jesus' resurrection, and it was only proved to them by seeing it first hand. For Paul this was a complete turn-around in his life. It does not seem likely that they had a hallucination.
6. Since that time, hundreds of thousands have experienced miracles based on the word of the person who it is claimed to be resurrected. This is not a direct claim of resurrection, but it is a strong affirmation of some kind of unknown power that rests in the person of Jesus, that indicates that there is something more than just a religious story going on here.
7. Given that there is sufficient ancient evidence for an ancient event, the strongest argument against the resurrection is this: "Resurrections simply don't happen. We have never seen a resurrection, therefore resurrections could never have happened." But this argument is an argument against someone else's personal experience based on the lack of personal experience. Just because we have not personally seen the surface of Pluto does not mean that such a surface does not exist. It is easy to deny that which we have not seen, and say that the evidence for it is shaky. But logically it doesn't hold water. We cannot deny what another person saw by saying that we have not seen it. We cannot deny that someone has not felt something because no one we know has ever felt it.
Thus, the fact is, there IS historical basis for the resurrection-- as historically reliable as many other events we have in history that we strongly affirm. And there is realistically only a philosophical presupposition against it.
-A Discussion from MennoDiscuss
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Discussion on Theology
A discussion held at the site Christarchy! under the topic "RANT!"
http://www.christarchy.com/
Too much time is spent on theological sidelines, such as a debate on Cavinism. It's entertaining, but does it really get to the heart of the gospel?
So often we ask "what is true?" when we should really be asking, "what is significant?" It is so easy for us to get caught up in Bible trivia, or theological interpretaitons. We really don't have time for that. There are people dying out there without the gospel, so we need to focus in on significant truths.
What are these significant truths? What needs to be done is rather than have "Bible studies" in general, we should focus on what is important to Jesus. After all, it is Jesus who is our Lord, not Calvin, not Augustine, not even Paul. And what is important to Jesus is that which He spoke about.
Jesus said that we should call no one "teacher" for we all have one teacher and that is the Christ (Matt 23). So a Christian Bible Study should be led by Jesus. And those who are the moderators should be those who are well versed in the teaching of Jesus, not the Law, not theology, not politics, not social reform. Let's let Jesus himself teach us about the True Law, the True Theology, True Politics and True Social Reform. We need to stop beginning with the world's ideas and just stick with Jesus.
Steve K
theology doesn't really cook my grits if i can be honest here. if someone want sto zing me with their reaons why i'm wrong i'll greatfully read it, but i don't get any satisfaction from studying who someone else thinks God is through over analyzing a re-defined rather than re-contextualized obscure passage. i only have a problem with theology when people start to worship their idea of who God is rather than God, the unknowable.
i am working very hard to make the best of this time when i don't have a full time job and i can walk carefully in the dust of my rabbi.
-Nathan
In Theology it isn't what you know, it's Who you know!
That Who is a source of ideas & wisdom for knowing Him better! As it says in James' letter, it helps to pray for more wisdom & understanding. We don't necessarily have enough otherwise!
I find a lot of people in the Quaker thing lately who don't think they should be praying for anything, but should be rather leaving it all up to God. But I don't think we're supposed to see God's will as altogether independent of ours. We need to ask so we can think about what's worth asking for. We need to ask so we can take our part in the process, practice our dependence on God and at the same time practice taking part in what God does with us. (God can give a person muscles, but there are reasons He normally makes doing something with them a requirement for that.)
A good theology is a kind of a poem, not a sort of tech manual! If you read it in that spirit, you can understand it better and have less risk of putting it to bad use.
The basic Quaker thing (& a basic Sufi thing, for that matter) is to recognize God as our teacher. God can teach us through the Bible, but also through anything else in our life. If you look for His classroom hints, they're there!
"You need to keep paying attention. If you aren't paying attention, you miss all the jokes!"
-Forrest Curo
You hit it exactly right Forrest. This is why my next sermon series is about knowing God, but I'm going to talk about our relationship to God, how He communicates to us and we communicate to Him. The term "love" in Scripture that we are to have for God is the same word love as between spouses. Thus, there is an intimacy, a communication that is just missing in theology.
Theology has it's place, when done correctly, in giving us a short-cut to some basic principles of the Bible. But when theology takes the place of the relationship we should have with God it becomes a heresy, an abomination. God doesn't want to drop us tracts, He wants to dwell with us.
Steve K
http://www.christarchy.com/
Too much time is spent on theological sidelines, such as a debate on Cavinism. It's entertaining, but does it really get to the heart of the gospel?
So often we ask "what is true?" when we should really be asking, "what is significant?" It is so easy for us to get caught up in Bible trivia, or theological interpretaitons. We really don't have time for that. There are people dying out there without the gospel, so we need to focus in on significant truths.
What are these significant truths? What needs to be done is rather than have "Bible studies" in general, we should focus on what is important to Jesus. After all, it is Jesus who is our Lord, not Calvin, not Augustine, not even Paul. And what is important to Jesus is that which He spoke about.
Jesus said that we should call no one "teacher" for we all have one teacher and that is the Christ (Matt 23). So a Christian Bible Study should be led by Jesus. And those who are the moderators should be those who are well versed in the teaching of Jesus, not the Law, not theology, not politics, not social reform. Let's let Jesus himself teach us about the True Law, the True Theology, True Politics and True Social Reform. We need to stop beginning with the world's ideas and just stick with Jesus.
Steve K
theology doesn't really cook my grits if i can be honest here. if someone want sto zing me with their reaons why i'm wrong i'll greatfully read it, but i don't get any satisfaction from studying who someone else thinks God is through over analyzing a re-defined rather than re-contextualized obscure passage. i only have a problem with theology when people start to worship their idea of who God is rather than God, the unknowable.
i am working very hard to make the best of this time when i don't have a full time job and i can walk carefully in the dust of my rabbi.
-Nathan
In Theology it isn't what you know, it's Who you know!
That Who is a source of ideas & wisdom for knowing Him better! As it says in James' letter, it helps to pray for more wisdom & understanding. We don't necessarily have enough otherwise!
I find a lot of people in the Quaker thing lately who don't think they should be praying for anything, but should be rather leaving it all up to God. But I don't think we're supposed to see God's will as altogether independent of ours. We need to ask so we can think about what's worth asking for. We need to ask so we can take our part in the process, practice our dependence on God and at the same time practice taking part in what God does with us. (God can give a person muscles, but there are reasons He normally makes doing something with them a requirement for that.)
A good theology is a kind of a poem, not a sort of tech manual! If you read it in that spirit, you can understand it better and have less risk of putting it to bad use.
The basic Quaker thing (& a basic Sufi thing, for that matter) is to recognize God as our teacher. God can teach us through the Bible, but also through anything else in our life. If you look for His classroom hints, they're there!
"You need to keep paying attention. If you aren't paying attention, you miss all the jokes!"
-Forrest Curo
You hit it exactly right Forrest. This is why my next sermon series is about knowing God, but I'm going to talk about our relationship to God, how He communicates to us and we communicate to Him. The term "love" in Scripture that we are to have for God is the same word love as between spouses. Thus, there is an intimacy, a communication that is just missing in theology.
Theology has it's place, when done correctly, in giving us a short-cut to some basic principles of the Bible. But when theology takes the place of the relationship we should have with God it becomes a heresy, an abomination. God doesn't want to drop us tracts, He wants to dwell with us.
Steve K
Friday, February 22, 2008
Respect, Trust, Love
Does the requirement to love also require us to respect others? What about to trust them?
Respect
Of course we are all called to love. And love is connected to respect.
In the ancient world, “honor” was a very important concept, even as it is to those who we see as being “macho” today. Many people—men, especially—are sensitive about their dignity, that they be treated with the proper amount of respect. In the ancient world, all men were concerned about that. Being treated with dignity was a basic human requirement, unless you were a slave or a woman.
In the church, slaves and women began to be treated with dignity as well. Poor people, who were treated at times as little better than slaves, were to be treated with dignity as well. James makes the connection between love and respect very clear in his second chapter. Poor people were being ignore by the church, who focused all their lavish attention on the wealthy. James says that the church was disrespecting the poor man, whom God blesses because of their faith. Then he gives his Scriptural proof—“Love your neighbor as yourself.” Even as we do not wish to be disrespected, to be treated without dignity, even so we should treat others with dignity, with basic respect.
What does this respect mean? Does it mean to praise everyone? Does it mean that we have to say nice things about all people no matter what they do? Does it mean that we need to give everyone the “red carpet treatment”? No. We do not have to treat everyone like a Nobel Lauriat.
Respect means the following things:
a. We speak politely to everyone
b. We don’t look down on anyone, no matter who they are or what they’ve done
c. We listen to what people are saying
d. We do not treat another person as a bad person unless we have proof that they are, and even then, we let people know that any cautions we take are not personal.
e. We apologize for any slight we might have given to others, whether intentional or unintentional
f. We should thank and praise people for the work they have done for us or for the Lord
We can give some people more respect than others, but this should be for how they have lived before the Lord, not because of worldly standards. We shouldn’t respect one person above another because they have more money, more fame, more status than others. If a person is an authority, such as a police officer or a governor, then we should give the respect that is due to the office—but that is more of a formal politeness (Paul said to “give respect to whom respect is due” in speaking of government officials).
But if someone like Jean Vanier comes by, then we should give him more respect than others. Not because of his fame, but because of his faithfulness to the Lord. Because he started a great work and has built up God’s kingdom. We should see the Mother Theresas of the world, and give them great respect. Not because others are giving them respect. But because God has respect for them. And we should open our eyes to those whom God respects that the world does not, such as Byron, and give them the respect that the world does not give. We should go out of our way to thank them for their life of faithfulness.
Trust
The saying goes, “Trust isn’t given, it is earned.” I would say that a certain amount of trust IS given. If someone walks in our house, we don’t assume that they will steal anything. We will not leave someone with our guest to make sure that they don’t make off with the silver. If we did, we would be treating them as a thief and that would be a sign of disrespect.
But when trust is broken, that is when it must be earned back. And it usually must be earned twice as much to establish the trust that is given freely to anyone.
But I think you were asking about the trust we should give.
First of all, do not give or withhold basic trust based on appearances or life circumstance. Just because someone is impoverished doesn’t mean that they are less trustworthy in money matters. Just because someone is mentally ill doesn’t mean they are dangerous (less so, statistically). We need to give everyone the same amount of trust or lack of trust unless we see that their actions don’t support that trust.
If someone breaks our trust, we should not use that as an excuse to break our relationship with them. We must give them an opportunity to repent.
If the person does repent, we must forgive them and accept them back into our good graces. But does this mean we trust them? Well, yes, but with reservations. Gordon, I trust you completely, but I don’t trust you enough to bring you into a bar and to put a drink in front of you. That’s because I know your weaknesses and I don’t want to trip you up. Even so, when someone breaks our trust and they repent, then we know their weaknesses better. And we are able to take better care for them, by helping them avoid situations in which their weaknesses will be vulnerable.
That’s Romans 14. We don’t judge people because they hold different standards than us, but we don’t make them vulnerable to their weaknesses, either.
So trust unless you have reason not to.
Forgive and then take responsibility to help the trust breaker not to break trust again.
Respect
Of course we are all called to love. And love is connected to respect.
In the ancient world, “honor” was a very important concept, even as it is to those who we see as being “macho” today. Many people—men, especially—are sensitive about their dignity, that they be treated with the proper amount of respect. In the ancient world, all men were concerned about that. Being treated with dignity was a basic human requirement, unless you were a slave or a woman.
In the church, slaves and women began to be treated with dignity as well. Poor people, who were treated at times as little better than slaves, were to be treated with dignity as well. James makes the connection between love and respect very clear in his second chapter. Poor people were being ignore by the church, who focused all their lavish attention on the wealthy. James says that the church was disrespecting the poor man, whom God blesses because of their faith. Then he gives his Scriptural proof—“Love your neighbor as yourself.” Even as we do not wish to be disrespected, to be treated without dignity, even so we should treat others with dignity, with basic respect.
What does this respect mean? Does it mean to praise everyone? Does it mean that we have to say nice things about all people no matter what they do? Does it mean that we need to give everyone the “red carpet treatment”? No. We do not have to treat everyone like a Nobel Lauriat.
Respect means the following things:
a. We speak politely to everyone
b. We don’t look down on anyone, no matter who they are or what they’ve done
c. We listen to what people are saying
d. We do not treat another person as a bad person unless we have proof that they are, and even then, we let people know that any cautions we take are not personal.
e. We apologize for any slight we might have given to others, whether intentional or unintentional
f. We should thank and praise people for the work they have done for us or for the Lord
We can give some people more respect than others, but this should be for how they have lived before the Lord, not because of worldly standards. We shouldn’t respect one person above another because they have more money, more fame, more status than others. If a person is an authority, such as a police officer or a governor, then we should give the respect that is due to the office—but that is more of a formal politeness (Paul said to “give respect to whom respect is due” in speaking of government officials).
But if someone like Jean Vanier comes by, then we should give him more respect than others. Not because of his fame, but because of his faithfulness to the Lord. Because he started a great work and has built up God’s kingdom. We should see the Mother Theresas of the world, and give them great respect. Not because others are giving them respect. But because God has respect for them. And we should open our eyes to those whom God respects that the world does not, such as Byron, and give them the respect that the world does not give. We should go out of our way to thank them for their life of faithfulness.
Trust
The saying goes, “Trust isn’t given, it is earned.” I would say that a certain amount of trust IS given. If someone walks in our house, we don’t assume that they will steal anything. We will not leave someone with our guest to make sure that they don’t make off with the silver. If we did, we would be treating them as a thief and that would be a sign of disrespect.
But when trust is broken, that is when it must be earned back. And it usually must be earned twice as much to establish the trust that is given freely to anyone.
But I think you were asking about the trust we should give.
First of all, do not give or withhold basic trust based on appearances or life circumstance. Just because someone is impoverished doesn’t mean that they are less trustworthy in money matters. Just because someone is mentally ill doesn’t mean they are dangerous (less so, statistically). We need to give everyone the same amount of trust or lack of trust unless we see that their actions don’t support that trust.
If someone breaks our trust, we should not use that as an excuse to break our relationship with them. We must give them an opportunity to repent.
If the person does repent, we must forgive them and accept them back into our good graces. But does this mean we trust them? Well, yes, but with reservations. Gordon, I trust you completely, but I don’t trust you enough to bring you into a bar and to put a drink in front of you. That’s because I know your weaknesses and I don’t want to trip you up. Even so, when someone breaks our trust and they repent, then we know their weaknesses better. And we are able to take better care for them, by helping them avoid situations in which their weaknesses will be vulnerable.
That’s Romans 14. We don’t judge people because they hold different standards than us, but we don’t make them vulnerable to their weaknesses, either.
So trust unless you have reason not to.
Forgive and then take responsibility to help the trust breaker not to break trust again.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Red Letter Christians
A Discussion on MennoDiscuss:
The principle of being "red letter focused" is not, as far as I follow it, a question of having one part of Scripture being "more inspired" than others, but recognizing that Scripture as a whole is not consistent, nor can we take all of it's commands and princples to be of equal weight. As Jesus pointed out, sometimes keeping the Sabbath holy isn't consistant with having mercy on the needy and we have to make choices. And we have to make decisions about the law of having a rail on our roof. And we have to make a determination as to whether we will listen to James' or Paul's understanding of how faith and works connect.
The "red letter" approach is to say that we begin our interpretation of the whole inspired Scripture with Jesus to help us understand what God really wants from us. Jesus not only is our Saviour and God, but He is also our Teacher, and the Scripture can only be truly understood through Him. He teaches us not only the fulfillment of the Law, and the meaning of the Prophets, but He also teaches us how to understand Paul and the significace of Hebrews. In my understanding, the OT is the text that Jesus uses to expound His principles, but they have no coherance apart from His teaching. The NT is the act of Jesus followers attempting to apply Jesus to their lives. But Jesus' teaching and life is the center of our existance. If we have nothing other than Jesus' words, then we have enough. Because we have more than just Jesus words, but also the books on which he expounded and the commentaries on his teaching, then we are richly blessed with great knowledge.
However, if we put our limited interpretation of Paul above Jesus (as some do when they say that Paul's teaching allows us to ignore the principles of the Sermon on the Mount), then we are putting Paul, not Jesus as our Teacher (even though they rightly never disagree with each other). If we place Moses or David above Jesus (as some do when they hold the principles of the warrior to be above Jesus' teachng on loving one's enemies) then we have Moses or David as our Teacher, not Jesus.
Jesus said that we are not to call each other Teacher, for only ONE would be our teacher, the Messiah (Matthew 23). So if Jesus is our Messiah, then He alone is our teacher, and Paul and James and John and Moses and David and Solomon and Isaiah etc, are only helpful as teachers if they point us to the teaching of Jesus. Sure, they can give us some good help that Jesus didn't actually say, but it is Jesus who is our doctrine.
Do the forgoing comments require that the red letters be more important than the black ones? If they are all inspired, they should all coincide. Most of what Christ taught as is recorded for us, was before the sacrifice that He made, the rest comes afterward, in definition of His work of redemption.
While Paul is certainly more "theological" in his presentation, is he less inspired? Perhaps he was only 80% inspired, while Christ was 100% inspired? This seems to be the outworking of the lines of reasoning that you all are suggesting, a carving up of the NT with a pen knife.
As I recall, the early Anabaptists used all of the NT to define their faith. The concept of body dynamics is found in Paul, more completely defined than in the gospels (ie, community of goods, etc). Can we have one without the other? How would you know how the early church practiced except for the book of Acts? Can you separate Acts from Luke?
I don't find a principle in the NT writers that elevates the gospels above the rest, it seems to be an invention, though perhaps well intended, but an invention of humans, non the less. Remember, the gospels themselves are the observations of humans, and not the writings of Jesus, just like the rest of the NT. IF one part is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then all of it is, and bears the same stamp of authority and approval of YHWH.
The fact is that most of what Christ taught is eschatalogical, and how many of us ignore the real implications of that, and either ignore it, or try to explain it away as being irrelevant or unfulfilled? Why indeed should it be so hard to understand why so much more of His teachings are handled in similar fashion? We hold to the traditions of man contrary to the teachings of Jesus, but will major on some favorite passages. Let's put them together, and allow all of them to speak to us cohesively.
-G Donner
The principle of being "red letter focused" is not, as far as I follow it, a question of having one part of Scripture being "more inspired" than others, but recognizing that Scripture as a whole is not consistent, nor can we take all of it's commands and princples to be of equal weight. As Jesus pointed out, sometimes keeping the Sabbath holy isn't consistant with having mercy on the needy and we have to make choices. And we have to make decisions about the law of having a rail on our roof. And we have to make a determination as to whether we will listen to James' or Paul's understanding of how faith and works connect.
The "red letter" approach is to say that we begin our interpretation of the whole inspired Scripture with Jesus to help us understand what God really wants from us. Jesus not only is our Saviour and God, but He is also our Teacher, and the Scripture can only be truly understood through Him. He teaches us not only the fulfillment of the Law, and the meaning of the Prophets, but He also teaches us how to understand Paul and the significace of Hebrews. In my understanding, the OT is the text that Jesus uses to expound His principles, but they have no coherance apart from His teaching. The NT is the act of Jesus followers attempting to apply Jesus to their lives. But Jesus' teaching and life is the center of our existance. If we have nothing other than Jesus' words, then we have enough. Because we have more than just Jesus words, but also the books on which he expounded and the commentaries on his teaching, then we are richly blessed with great knowledge.
However, if we put our limited interpretation of Paul above Jesus (as some do when they say that Paul's teaching allows us to ignore the principles of the Sermon on the Mount), then we are putting Paul, not Jesus as our Teacher (even though they rightly never disagree with each other). If we place Moses or David above Jesus (as some do when they hold the principles of the warrior to be above Jesus' teachng on loving one's enemies) then we have Moses or David as our Teacher, not Jesus.
Jesus said that we are not to call each other Teacher, for only ONE would be our teacher, the Messiah (Matthew 23). So if Jesus is our Messiah, then He alone is our teacher, and Paul and James and John and Moses and David and Solomon and Isaiah etc, are only helpful as teachers if they point us to the teaching of Jesus. Sure, they can give us some good help that Jesus didn't actually say, but it is Jesus who is our doctrine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)