I read a fantastic blog by comedic genius Ricky Gervais about why he is an Atheist (I suggest you read it too to make your own conclusions). I say fantastic not because I agree with his conclusions, for I am not an Atheist, but because I understand where he is coming from. Not only can I entirely appreciate why he is an atheist, but I think he raises an important question that any Christian should not be afraid of, but embrace: Why do you believe in God?
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Monday Night Book Club - Now on Wednesdays!
What we did over our Summer Vacation...and the fall too, I guess...
Lamb, by Christopher Moore
After spending much of the spring and summer “on vacation” from books, Monday Night Book Club started a new book: Lamb, by Christopher Moore. This book caught me off guard, at first, by how irreverently it treated all of the people surrounding “Joshua” (as Moore refers to Jesus). But once growing accustomed to, and mostly enjoying, Moore’s dirty humor, I enjoyed the story he weaved around the “forgotten years” of Jesus’ boyhood, teen and young adult years. It was imaginative, and I felt its strengths lay in the fact that it generally put a human face on mythic, inhumane characters from the Gospel stories. While not “Christ scholarship” (which it was not intended to be), it made the stories of Jesus’ ministry seem approachable and understandable - basically, it humanized them. I also appreciated that, he ultimately did not treat the character of Josh with the disrespect that he heaped upon some of the other characters (the apostles, for example, did not get off so easily). Finally, I was glad that he did not mess with any of the fundamental understandings of Jesus. I think it is effective as a work of comedic historical fiction, and it should be read as such.
Current Book:
Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, Annie Dillard
Lamb, by Christopher Moore
After spending much of the spring and summer “on vacation” from books, Monday Night Book Club started a new book: Lamb, by Christopher Moore. This book caught me off guard, at first, by how irreverently it treated all of the people surrounding “Joshua” (as Moore refers to Jesus). But once growing accustomed to, and mostly enjoying, Moore’s dirty humor, I enjoyed the story he weaved around the “forgotten years” of Jesus’ boyhood, teen and young adult years. It was imaginative, and I felt its strengths lay in the fact that it generally put a human face on mythic, inhumane characters from the Gospel stories. While not “Christ scholarship” (which it was not intended to be), it made the stories of Jesus’ ministry seem approachable and understandable - basically, it humanized them. I also appreciated that, he ultimately did not treat the character of Josh with the disrespect that he heaped upon some of the other characters (the apostles, for example, did not get off so easily). Finally, I was glad that he did not mess with any of the fundamental understandings of Jesus. I think it is effective as a work of comedic historical fiction, and it should be read as such.
Current Book:
Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, Annie Dillard
Friday, August 20, 2010
Deus Ex Machina
So, before I can talk about what kind of story I'd like to be living, let's talk about the story that I am already living. Or rather, the non-story I'm already living. Let's talk about deus ex machina, the god in the machine.
It's one of the oldest diagnoses of a poorly-written plot. An author places his hero into a seemingly impossible situation -- and then discovers that it is actually an impossible situation. He hasn't given his protagonist the tools needed to solve this problem. The author should go to rewrite, start reconstructing the architecture of his plot. But instead, the author uses his sorcerous powers to summon a new element from outside the story he's been telling, an element that will solve the hero's predicament for him.
It's pretty easy to why this is bad plot-writing. Take Don's definition of a story: "A story is a character who wants something and overcomes conflict to
achieve it." It's all hiding in that word "overcome." When a god walks on stage and solves everything, the hero hasn't overcome anything. It's been overcome for him.
Two years ago, I left Arlington, Virginia, to head off to a theological grad school in Vancouver, British Columbia. I'd been planning on doing it for years but I hadn't felt ready yet. But God started leaning on me to get going. So I quit my job, put my furniture and stuff into storage, and gave up my apartment. There was one problem: I didn't actually have the money together to get to Vancouver. But hey, this was God's idea -- I believed that He was going to provide. After all, He'd done it before. (Ask me sometime how I got my apartment at 25% below market rate.)
So I came home to Detroit, Michigan, to stay with my parents for a few weeks while I waited for my miracle. Two years later, I'm still waiting.
I've been living with my life on pause (my driver's liscence still says "Virginia"). I'm just waiting, waiting for my own /deus ex machina/.
It's a pretty terrible plot to be living -- that level of passivity is not normally seen this side of Waiting for Godot. Even the sort of writers who find themselves resorting to deus ex usually have their heroes fumbling around, trying something -- anything -- to solve the problem themselves before the deus steps in, recognizing that even if the hero doesn't "overcome", he should at least "attempt to overcome".
But instead I'm waiting -- waiting for someone else to come and fix my story. In "Million Miles", Don mentions that "when when stop expecting God to end all of your troubles, you'd be surprised at how much you like spending time with God." I've definitely found the inverse to be true. When you're expecting God to step in, and He doesn't, it's pretty easy to stop liking Him.
I've only recently been confronted by the depths of my passivity. I used to have a fig leaf of a story for the past two years: "I'm taking care of my grandparents." And I was. They're homebound, and the rest of the family was too busy, and I had the time and willingness to do so. But Grandma passed away a few months ago. And as hard as the deep relational loss of her passing has been, I often think that the loss of my fig leaf has been even harder. When I came out of the shock period of the grieving, I suddenly felt the weight of two years' worth of purposelessness. I still take care of Grandpa, but every visit to his house echoes not just with Grandma's lost love but with my lost time.
And the worst part is, with all of that, I'm still not wholly convinced that I'm wrong to be waiting.
For me, Scripture reverberates with deus ex. The ram that saved Issac, the parting of the Red Sea, the gift of mana, the fall of Jericho, the triumph of Gideon, so many more. When his people need him, God is the one who rescues. Even the gospel itself is deus ex. None of us can save ourselves. That's the role of the true hero, the good king of all creation.
Take Scripture's oldest story: Job. Job is a wealthy man who loses everything to catastrophe. He, his wife, and his friends spend chapters and chapters debating what is going on, what has Job done to deserve such a story, and what should he do in the face of it. And if Job was the actual hero, that might have been the correct discussion. But at the end, God shows up and asks, in essence, "Why do you think that you're the hero of this story? Why do you think that you're the one who has lost the plot and needs to set it to right?". And after Job recognizes that God is the hero, his story is restored.
But can that really be it? Can the greatest story being told really rely on hack plot gimmick? And if so, if the true hero seems to be offstage somewhere,what does the bit player do in the meantime? Put on a perfomance of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead? Or maybe, just maybe, he decides to try to be a real character after all.
So, step one: want something.
In "Million Miles", Don spends a lot of time mocking the guy whose story revolves around wanting a new car. But frankly, compared to the non-story of waiting for deus ex, that's a downright scintillating story. So there's any number of mini-stories that would a good change for the next year or so: retrieving my stuff out from storage in Virginia, finding a job (even if it's the boringest job ever), getting my own place again.
Ultimately, I want to start a think-tank to help spread the word that the gospel is bigger than getting into heaven and that the church is supposed to be more than an institution to perpetuate a certain form of middle-class American suburban culture. Before that, I'm still longing for grad school -- I need the training and I want the credential.
And from the standpoint of literary structure, that's probably what I should cycle back around to here. I started with my plans for school getting interrupted, the story I propose for the future should probably involve getting back to that. Unfortunately, my sense of story is currently atrophied. I still can't there from here. Any plan I propose would have an Underpants-Gnome-esque "??????????" somewhere in the middle. Even the mini-stories, the one about getting practicalities in order, are a bit of stretch.
Right now, I just want to complete this contest entry. Actually winning and getting to go to the conference would be an excellent bonus, getting a chance to be immersed in life-as-good story-telling. But actually wanting to do something, starting it, and finishing it would be a great micro-story. As for overcoming conflict, Web browsers and video games aren't the most epic of foes, but the vicious little time bandits are pretty powerful after being reinforced by two years of lethargy.
Tomorrow, I need to want to prepare for a presentation I'm giving to a Stephen Ministry group I'm involved in. And I'll need to fight off the same time bandits again.
Sunday gets to be a Sabbath, and it should be a great one. Some of my friends and I have decided to start a house church, unaffiliated and uncredentialed. Sunday's our first meeting. We're still working out our overall vision, let alone our actual plans. But I want it to succeed. And I'm sure we'll have to overcome conflict to get there.
Come Monday, I need to want to find a job. I need to want to send out resumes, to rifle through classifieds. And the conflict is still the same: fight off the bonds of my own passivity. Once I get a job, I need to save up $600 or so to get and retrieve my stuff from Virginia. And then I'll need to do it again to put together the deposit on an apartment.
And so, step by step, day by day, I'll learn how to live life where I am, rather than where I was or where I wish I could be.
--
The above is an entry in Donald Miller's contest for Living a Better Story Seminar. See below:
It's one of the oldest diagnoses of a poorly-written plot. An author places his hero into a seemingly impossible situation -- and then discovers that it is actually an impossible situation. He hasn't given his protagonist the tools needed to solve this problem. The author should go to rewrite, start reconstructing the architecture of his plot. But instead, the author uses his sorcerous powers to summon a new element from outside the story he's been telling, an element that will solve the hero's predicament for him.
It's pretty easy to why this is bad plot-writing. Take Don's definition of a story: "A story is a character who wants something and overcomes conflict to
achieve it." It's all hiding in that word "overcome." When a god walks on stage and solves everything, the hero hasn't overcome anything. It's been overcome for him.
Two years ago, I left Arlington, Virginia, to head off to a theological grad school in Vancouver, British Columbia. I'd been planning on doing it for years but I hadn't felt ready yet. But God started leaning on me to get going. So I quit my job, put my furniture and stuff into storage, and gave up my apartment. There was one problem: I didn't actually have the money together to get to Vancouver. But hey, this was God's idea -- I believed that He was going to provide. After all, He'd done it before. (Ask me sometime how I got my apartment at 25% below market rate.)
So I came home to Detroit, Michigan, to stay with my parents for a few weeks while I waited for my miracle. Two years later, I'm still waiting.
I've been living with my life on pause (my driver's liscence still says "Virginia"). I'm just waiting, waiting for my own /deus ex machina/.
It's a pretty terrible plot to be living -- that level of passivity is not normally seen this side of Waiting for Godot. Even the sort of writers who find themselves resorting to deus ex usually have their heroes fumbling around, trying something -- anything -- to solve the problem themselves before the deus steps in, recognizing that even if the hero doesn't "overcome", he should at least "attempt to overcome".
But instead I'm waiting -- waiting for someone else to come and fix my story. In "Million Miles", Don mentions that "when when stop expecting God to end all of your troubles, you'd be surprised at how much you like spending time with God." I've definitely found the inverse to be true. When you're expecting God to step in, and He doesn't, it's pretty easy to stop liking Him.
I've only recently been confronted by the depths of my passivity. I used to have a fig leaf of a story for the past two years: "I'm taking care of my grandparents." And I was. They're homebound, and the rest of the family was too busy, and I had the time and willingness to do so. But Grandma passed away a few months ago. And as hard as the deep relational loss of her passing has been, I often think that the loss of my fig leaf has been even harder. When I came out of the shock period of the grieving, I suddenly felt the weight of two years' worth of purposelessness. I still take care of Grandpa, but every visit to his house echoes not just with Grandma's lost love but with my lost time.
And the worst part is, with all of that, I'm still not wholly convinced that I'm wrong to be waiting.
For me, Scripture reverberates with deus ex. The ram that saved Issac, the parting of the Red Sea, the gift of mana, the fall of Jericho, the triumph of Gideon, so many more. When his people need him, God is the one who rescues. Even the gospel itself is deus ex. None of us can save ourselves. That's the role of the true hero, the good king of all creation.
Take Scripture's oldest story: Job. Job is a wealthy man who loses everything to catastrophe. He, his wife, and his friends spend chapters and chapters debating what is going on, what has Job done to deserve such a story, and what should he do in the face of it. And if Job was the actual hero, that might have been the correct discussion. But at the end, God shows up and asks, in essence, "Why do you think that you're the hero of this story? Why do you think that you're the one who has lost the plot and needs to set it to right?". And after Job recognizes that God is the hero, his story is restored.
But can that really be it? Can the greatest story being told really rely on hack plot gimmick? And if so, if the true hero seems to be offstage somewhere,what does the bit player do in the meantime? Put on a perfomance of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead? Or maybe, just maybe, he decides to try to be a real character after all.
So, step one: want something.
In "Million Miles", Don spends a lot of time mocking the guy whose story revolves around wanting a new car. But frankly, compared to the non-story of waiting for deus ex, that's a downright scintillating story. So there's any number of mini-stories that would a good change for the next year or so: retrieving my stuff out from storage in Virginia, finding a job (even if it's the boringest job ever), getting my own place again.
Ultimately, I want to start a think-tank to help spread the word that the gospel is bigger than getting into heaven and that the church is supposed to be more than an institution to perpetuate a certain form of middle-class American suburban culture. Before that, I'm still longing for grad school -- I need the training and I want the credential.
And from the standpoint of literary structure, that's probably what I should cycle back around to here. I started with my plans for school getting interrupted, the story I propose for the future should probably involve getting back to that. Unfortunately, my sense of story is currently atrophied. I still can't there from here. Any plan I propose would have an Underpants-Gnome-esque "??????????" somewhere in the middle. Even the mini-stories, the one about getting practicalities in order, are a bit of stretch.
Right now, I just want to complete this contest entry. Actually winning and getting to go to the conference would be an excellent bonus, getting a chance to be immersed in life-as-good story-telling. But actually wanting to do something, starting it, and finishing it would be a great micro-story. As for overcoming conflict, Web browsers and video games aren't the most epic of foes, but the vicious little time bandits are pretty powerful after being reinforced by two years of lethargy.
Tomorrow, I need to want to prepare for a presentation I'm giving to a Stephen Ministry group I'm involved in. And I'll need to fight off the same time bandits again.
Sunday gets to be a Sabbath, and it should be a great one. Some of my friends and I have decided to start a house church, unaffiliated and uncredentialed. Sunday's our first meeting. We're still working out our overall vision, let alone our actual plans. But I want it to succeed. And I'm sure we'll have to overcome conflict to get there.
Come Monday, I need to want to find a job. I need to want to send out resumes, to rifle through classifieds. And the conflict is still the same: fight off the bonds of my own passivity. Once I get a job, I need to save up $600 or so to get and retrieve my stuff from Virginia. And then I'll need to do it again to put together the deposit on an apartment.
And so, step by step, day by day, I'll learn how to live life where I am, rather than where I was or where I wish I could be.
--
The above is an entry in Donald Miller's contest for Living a Better Story Seminar. See below:
Living a Better Story Seminar from All Things Converge Podcast on Vimeo.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Why we gave up on the Truth Project
Was it because we rejected Truth??? No, just "truthiness".
Straw man arguments, inconsistency and gross generalizations all to support very simple conclusions: Truth is good, post-modern is bad, Conservative is good, Liberal is bad, philosophy is misleading, etc.
Come on Molly, Mark, Corey and Alison - I know you have something to say about this!
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The World's Worst Teaching
I may try editing this into something substantive at some point, but here's a tab dump of items related to the World's Worst Teaching:
* On the origin of the description: The last post of Slacktivist's review of the first book of Left Behind
Less tangentially:
* The Truth Problem
* Parts one and two of one blog review. Part one starts with the sentences: "I learned an important lesson recently. Never sign up to teach a curriculum that you have not reviewed."
* Parts one and two of another blog review -- Part one contains the sentences: "They are naive charlatans delivering complex theological and philosophical issues in an oversimplified and erroneous package... bless their hearts. So what exactly is my problem? It’s too massive to address. It’s like trying to mend a decapitated elephant with a box of Band-Aids" [Ellipses in the original.]
* I skimmed this magazine-ish article. It puts a larger strategic context around the World's Worst Teaching. Oddly, the first comment on the article comes from the author's uncle, disputing her description of her childhood church as "ultra-conservative."
* A few other blogs that I haven't finished reading their critiques yet.
* On the origin of the description: The last post of Slacktivist's review of the first book of Left Behind
Less tangentially:
* The Truth Problem
* Parts one and two of one blog review. Part one starts with the sentences: "I learned an important lesson recently. Never sign up to teach a curriculum that you have not reviewed."
* Parts one and two of another blog review -- Part one contains the sentences: "They are naive charlatans delivering complex theological and philosophical issues in an oversimplified and erroneous package... bless their hearts. So what exactly is my problem? It’s too massive to address. It’s like trying to mend a decapitated elephant with a box of Band-Aids" [Ellipses in the original.]
* I skimmed this magazine-ish article. It puts a larger strategic context around the World's Worst Teaching. Oddly, the first comment on the article comes from the author's uncle, disputing her description of her childhood church as "ultra-conservative."
* A few other blogs that I haven't finished reading their critiques yet.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Dallas Willard Quote
...justification is a new beginning for a relationship that has been broken, and it is made right by forgiveness, but that's just the doorway into the resumption of relationship. The relationship [itself] is atonement, and that involves Christ becoming one with us. [Atonement] means that we now [can] walk with Him and that He is in us, and we are in Him. We have eternal life, and that is what atonement is. The result of atonement is deliverance or salvation. We are not under the power of sin and death anymore. Justification, atonement, and salvation are three aspects of one thing.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
My cousin sent me this article and it reminded me of one of our discussions last week on culture. It is actually a review of a book, To Change the World, which seems to be discussing the role of the church/bodies of believers in culture.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Personal Theology Quiz
Here's the quiz I was talking about tonight.
I just took the quiz now quickly. Apparently I interpreted some of the questions differently from before. Same top four as always -- the order varies -- but they're all usually clustered together in the 70s. My Charismatic/Pentecostal score dropped off to 50%! I'm clearly going to have to do something about that...
Full results:
Neo orthodox 79%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 79%
Emergent/Postmodern 75%
Charismatic/Pentecostal 50%
Roman Catholic 39%
Classical Liberal 39%
Reformed Evangelical 25%
Fundamentalist 18%
Modern Liberal 14%
I just took the quiz now quickly. Apparently I interpreted some of the questions differently from before. Same top four as always -- the order varies -- but they're all usually clustered together in the 70s. My Charismatic/Pentecostal score dropped off to 50%! I'm clearly going to have to do something about that...
Full results:
Neo orthodox 79%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 79%
Emergent/Postmodern 75%
Charismatic/Pentecostal 50%
Roman Catholic 39%
Classical Liberal 39%
Reformed Evangelical 25%
Fundamentalist 18%
Modern Liberal 14%
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Grow in Grace / Go and do likewise
"Grace is opposed to earning, not effort.". Dallas Willard
This quote is one of Dallas' favorite quotes. I have been slowly digesting it for a few weeks now and trying to internalize it and reconcile it with another concept that was ingrained in me many years ago: we are saved by faith alone through the grace of Jesus- we are not saved by works.
When I was younger, I was led by pop, modern Christianity to believe that the only point of grace is to forgive us of our sins when we ask for it. Taken in combination with my misunderstanding that "faith" was a matter of believing certain ideas to be true (ie. the "right" things about God, Jesus, and a myriad of sociopolitical issues) and my belief that I needed to try really hard not to sin (lest I ask forgiveness for the same thing too often and cheapen grace) resulted in a personal theology of "sin management" [citation needed :-] and what Willard calls "consumerist Christianity without discipleship."
I went to church to participate in worship, but also to get more head knowledge and clarify the head knowledge I had to make sure I had the right answers (this was before I was introduced to the idea of a healthy respect for the mysteries of God). I tried really hard not to sin (not in an attempt to earn grace, but so I wouldn't "cheapen it"). And eventually, when I was a senior in high school, I hit a wall. I realized that while I wasn't doing anything really bad, neither was I doing anything really good. This bothered me and I felt like it was a deficit in my life. But I also had the ingrained idea that we don't do good works in an effort to earn salvation (most Protestants I knew avoided good works as a general rule, just to be on the safe side). I felt like that young rich man who said to Jesus: look, I keep the commandments, I am a good boy...what now?
Jesus' answer: sell all your stuff, give the money to the poor and follow me (discipleship)! Ok, nice in theory. But how do I follow Jesus at the turn of the twenty first century? My church wasn't giving me too many specifics: believe, read the bible, pray, witness, ask forgiveness (but don't cheapen grace!), repeat. Since Jesus is not physically standing before me, how can I follow him? If I try to do the stuff he did, barring the stuff I cannot do (miracles and such), and the stuff I was already trying (scripture, prayer and witnessing) it seems like there were a lot of good works involved (helping those less fortunate, feeding the poor, etc) and a lot of talking back to hipocritical and out-of-touch religious authorities (scribes, Pharisees, etc). This seemed in direct conflict with the dual concepts I had been taught since a youngster: we are saved by grace, not works, and you must respect your elders.
Now, given my youth and the youthful inclination toward rebellion, I was all about exploring the possibility that Jesus was a little more complex than the docile, sacrificial lamb that Sunday School portrayed him as (except when he cleared the money changers out of the temple - that had always made him seem uncharacteristically edgy). So I began to re-read the Gospels for the first time as though Jesus was also my teacher (I was in college at this point). This read much differently than it had when I read it ealier in life. Before this, I had known that Jesus was saying cool stuff, but all I really needed to remember was that Jesus loved and forgave me. But as Jesus also became me teacher, I began trying to live a little bit like he did in terms of my interpersonal relationships. I have no delusions of grandeur - I do not actually think I am perfect- just ask anyone close to me. But if Jesus is my teacher, shouldn't I TRY to treat others with love and understanding, despite our differences? And still, this did not seem to me to conflict with the idea that you cannot earn Grace or salvation. However, it did not mesh either, until I read this Dallas Willard line: "Grace is opposed to earning, not effort".
Just because we are saved by grace does not mean we should go through life as passive as a lump on a log. Even the demons believe that God is God and Jesus saves (and they tremble), but to do kingdom work requires some effort. Dallas also elaborates on how Grace plays a part in this. Grace is not merely used as a sin-balm; grace also sanctifies our actions. How do you "grow in grace"? Not by sinning more to exercise God's forgiveness (Rasputin style!), but by acting out of a desire to follow Jesus everyday and to do God's will (Discipleship is, after all, an action). Then, God's grace sanctifies our actions to serve his purpose. If God works for the good of those who love him and have been called according to his purpose (and we know he does- it's in Romans somewhere) then surely that doesn't just apply to helping us work through the bad stuff in our lives. It also applies to helping our good efforts actually result in some good for the kingdom of God.
Grow in Grace!
Be disciples (and teach others to do likewise)!
This quote is one of Dallas' favorite quotes. I have been slowly digesting it for a few weeks now and trying to internalize it and reconcile it with another concept that was ingrained in me many years ago: we are saved by faith alone through the grace of Jesus- we are not saved by works.
When I was younger, I was led by pop, modern Christianity to believe that the only point of grace is to forgive us of our sins when we ask for it. Taken in combination with my misunderstanding that "faith" was a matter of believing certain ideas to be true (ie. the "right" things about God, Jesus, and a myriad of sociopolitical issues) and my belief that I needed to try really hard not to sin (lest I ask forgiveness for the same thing too often and cheapen grace) resulted in a personal theology of "sin management" [citation needed :-] and what Willard calls "consumerist Christianity without discipleship."
I went to church to participate in worship, but also to get more head knowledge and clarify the head knowledge I had to make sure I had the right answers (this was before I was introduced to the idea of a healthy respect for the mysteries of God). I tried really hard not to sin (not in an attempt to earn grace, but so I wouldn't "cheapen it"). And eventually, when I was a senior in high school, I hit a wall. I realized that while I wasn't doing anything really bad, neither was I doing anything really good. This bothered me and I felt like it was a deficit in my life. But I also had the ingrained idea that we don't do good works in an effort to earn salvation (most Protestants I knew avoided good works as a general rule, just to be on the safe side). I felt like that young rich man who said to Jesus: look, I keep the commandments, I am a good boy...what now?
Jesus' answer: sell all your stuff, give the money to the poor and follow me (discipleship)! Ok, nice in theory. But how do I follow Jesus at the turn of the twenty first century? My church wasn't giving me too many specifics: believe, read the bible, pray, witness, ask forgiveness (but don't cheapen grace!), repeat. Since Jesus is not physically standing before me, how can I follow him? If I try to do the stuff he did, barring the stuff I cannot do (miracles and such), and the stuff I was already trying (scripture, prayer and witnessing) it seems like there were a lot of good works involved (helping those less fortunate, feeding the poor, etc) and a lot of talking back to hipocritical and out-of-touch religious authorities (scribes, Pharisees, etc). This seemed in direct conflict with the dual concepts I had been taught since a youngster: we are saved by grace, not works, and you must respect your elders.
Now, given my youth and the youthful inclination toward rebellion, I was all about exploring the possibility that Jesus was a little more complex than the docile, sacrificial lamb that Sunday School portrayed him as (except when he cleared the money changers out of the temple - that had always made him seem uncharacteristically edgy). So I began to re-read the Gospels for the first time as though Jesus was also my teacher (I was in college at this point). This read much differently than it had when I read it ealier in life. Before this, I had known that Jesus was saying cool stuff, but all I really needed to remember was that Jesus loved and forgave me. But as Jesus also became me teacher, I began trying to live a little bit like he did in terms of my interpersonal relationships. I have no delusions of grandeur - I do not actually think I am perfect- just ask anyone close to me. But if Jesus is my teacher, shouldn't I TRY to treat others with love and understanding, despite our differences? And still, this did not seem to me to conflict with the idea that you cannot earn Grace or salvation. However, it did not mesh either, until I read this Dallas Willard line: "Grace is opposed to earning, not effort".
Just because we are saved by grace does not mean we should go through life as passive as a lump on a log. Even the demons believe that God is God and Jesus saves (and they tremble), but to do kingdom work requires some effort. Dallas also elaborates on how Grace plays a part in this. Grace is not merely used as a sin-balm; grace also sanctifies our actions. How do you "grow in grace"? Not by sinning more to exercise God's forgiveness (Rasputin style!), but by acting out of a desire to follow Jesus everyday and to do God's will (Discipleship is, after all, an action). Then, God's grace sanctifies our actions to serve his purpose. If God works for the good of those who love him and have been called according to his purpose (and we know he does- it's in Romans somewhere) then surely that doesn't just apply to helping us work through the bad stuff in our lives. It also applies to helping our good efforts actually result in some good for the kingdom of God.
Grow in Grace!
Be disciples (and teach others to do likewise)!
Monday, May 3, 2010
Dallas Links
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Vision/Mission?
Vision: To be disciples and to teach others to do likewise
Mission: "Why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do what I tell you to do?"
Mission: "Why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do what I tell you to do?"
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Lightning Strikes
I have been thinking a lot recently about the concept of the "Lightning Strike" revelation. There is this idea that there will be an exact moment where God is going to cast His complete vision, and His complete wisdom on us. Then in the matter of a nanosecond we are going to assimilate this knowledge, and in this exact moment, in this nanosecond, we will be completely healed, changed, and remade. Why do we put so much pressure on ourselves to be change and remade in the moment?
I believe that true change, healing, and vision are possible and are very real. However, I do not believe that true change of character comes from one "AHA!" moment. Instead, that change happens over time, it is a process. It comes after days, years, even decades of walking next to Jesus himself. Of letting him love you, teach you, and yes even rebuke you. I believe this is where true internal transformation happen.
In chapter 6 of "The Great Omission" Dallas Willard writes, "....I can tell you that the transformation of character comes through learning how to act in concert with Jesus Christ. Character is formed through action, and it is transformed through action, including carefully planned and grace-sustained disciplines. To enter the path of obedience to Jesus Christ-intending to obey him and intending to learn whatever I have to learn in order to obey him-is the true path of spiritual formation or transformation."
Or if you prefer a more narrative bend, take a look at Peter's story. Peter was avid in his love for Jesus, but was constantly making poor choices. He lopped off ears, sinks in the water, doubts the power of Jesus, and even denies that he knew Jesus in the hour of crisis. Yet, Jesus still finds a place for him in the end, and is able to use him. Jesus never dismisses Peter, or tells Peter that he just won't ever get it.
Jesus loves Peter even in his faults and never gave up on him, even after Peter denied the Christ.
Jesus teaches Peter important lessons on how to interact with world, how to love your neighbor, and how to love your enemy.
Jesus even rebukes Peter when necessary telling him, "Oh you of little faith, why did you doubt?" (Yes, a rebuke can be gentle. :) )
Through this story, through this process of intimate relationship with Jesus did Peter see the deep change and transformation on his soul.
So, if you are at a point in your life where you are frustrated because you just don't seem to "get it". If you lay awake at night or you are so filled with anxiety because you wonder if you ever going to "get it right". If you seem to be making the same mistakes over and over and over again, and you get mad at yourself and think that you are never going to get it right. Take heart because Jesus is there and the process is working.
Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Philippians 3:12
I believe that true change, healing, and vision are possible and are very real. However, I do not believe that true change of character comes from one "AHA!" moment. Instead, that change happens over time, it is a process. It comes after days, years, even decades of walking next to Jesus himself. Of letting him love you, teach you, and yes even rebuke you. I believe this is where true internal transformation happen.
In chapter 6 of "The Great Omission" Dallas Willard writes, "....I can tell you that the transformation of character comes through learning how to act in concert with Jesus Christ. Character is formed through action, and it is transformed through action, including carefully planned and grace-sustained disciplines. To enter the path of obedience to Jesus Christ-intending to obey him and intending to learn whatever I have to learn in order to obey him-is the true path of spiritual formation or transformation."
Or if you prefer a more narrative bend, take a look at Peter's story. Peter was avid in his love for Jesus, but was constantly making poor choices. He lopped off ears, sinks in the water, doubts the power of Jesus, and even denies that he knew Jesus in the hour of crisis. Yet, Jesus still finds a place for him in the end, and is able to use him. Jesus never dismisses Peter, or tells Peter that he just won't ever get it.
Jesus loves Peter even in his faults and never gave up on him, even after Peter denied the Christ.
Jesus teaches Peter important lessons on how to interact with world, how to love your neighbor, and how to love your enemy.
Jesus even rebukes Peter when necessary telling him, "Oh you of little faith, why did you doubt?" (Yes, a rebuke can be gentle. :) )
Through this story, through this process of intimate relationship with Jesus did Peter see the deep change and transformation on his soul.
So, if you are at a point in your life where you are frustrated because you just don't seem to "get it". If you lay awake at night or you are so filled with anxiety because you wonder if you ever going to "get it right". If you seem to be making the same mistakes over and over and over again, and you get mad at yourself and think that you are never going to get it right. Take heart because Jesus is there and the process is working.
Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Philippians 3:12
Friday, March 5, 2010
Key Terms and Discussion from The Great Omission, Chapter 3
Respecting Jesus as our Teacher (18-20) -- The theme of this chapter. If we're going to be disciples (literally, students) of Jesus, then we have to respect his intelligence. This is in contrast to the typical contemporary view of Jesus:
Far too often he is regarded as hardly conscious. He is taken as a mere icon, a wraithlike semblance of a man living on the margins of "real life" where you and I must dwell. He is perhaps fit for a role as sacrificial lamb or alienated social critic, but little more. (19)
We talked about several possible sources this view of a dumb Jesus, ranging from failing to take his humanity seriously (and thereby ascribing all of his wisdom to his divine nature) to failing to take ancient people in general seriously.
Two paragraphs later, Dallas inverts my objection to mere admirers or mere worshipers of Jesus, saying, [b]ut how, then, can we admire him? And what can devotion or worship mean if simple respect is not included in it? (19)
What Jesus can teach us about (20-22) -- Dallas points to three major areas where we need Jesus's teaching and information in our lives: identity, character, and daily life.
Identity: Jesus brings us reliable information about who we are, why we are here, and what humanly appropriate motives are for doing whatever we do. This echoes Don Miller's point in Searching for God Knows What that human beings were designed to have someone outside of themselves (specifically, God) tell them who they are and what their value is.
Character: Another one of Dallas's language tricks, here reconceptualizing information as in-formation; that is, that as Jesus re-establishes our identity, he also transforms our internal character.
Daily Life: You may be very sure that if your intent is to glorify God and bless others in your actions, and you are not motivated by unloving attitudes, you will see the hand of God move with you expectantly do your work. (22) This point anticipates the chapter on Frank Laubach later in the book.
Far too often he is regarded as hardly conscious. He is taken as a mere icon, a wraithlike semblance of a man living on the margins of "real life" where you and I must dwell. He is perhaps fit for a role as sacrificial lamb or alienated social critic, but little more. (19)
We talked about several possible sources this view of a dumb Jesus, ranging from failing to take his humanity seriously (and thereby ascribing all of his wisdom to his divine nature) to failing to take ancient people in general seriously.
Two paragraphs later, Dallas inverts my objection to mere admirers or mere worshipers of Jesus, saying, [b]ut how, then, can we admire him? And what can devotion or worship mean if simple respect is not included in it? (19)
What Jesus can teach us about (20-22) -- Dallas points to three major areas where we need Jesus's teaching and information in our lives: identity, character, and daily life.
Identity: Jesus brings us reliable information about who we are, why we are here, and what humanly appropriate motives are for doing whatever we do. This echoes Don Miller's point in Searching for God Knows What that human beings were designed to have someone outside of themselves (specifically, God) tell them who they are and what their value is.
Character: Another one of Dallas's language tricks, here reconceptualizing information as in-formation; that is, that as Jesus re-establishes our identity, he also transforms our internal character.
Daily Life: You may be very sure that if your intent is to glorify God and bless others in your actions, and you are not motivated by unloving attitudes, you will see the hand of God move with you expectantly do your work. (22) This point anticipates the chapter on Frank Laubach later in the book.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Key Terms and Discussion from The Great Omission: Chapter 2
"Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven" (13) -- A slogan of bumper sticker Christianity that, for Dallas, sums up a counterfeit gospel. What the slogan really conveys is that forgiveness alone is what Christianity is all about, what is genuinely essential to it. It says that you can have a faith in Christ that brings forgiveness, while in every other respect your life is no different from that of others who have no faith in Christ at all. [The Divine Conspiracy (36)]
Vampire Christianity (14) -- A sarcastic term for those whose only interest in Jesus is his blood. Dallas emphatically insists that one cannot trust in the blood of Jesus without actually trusting in Jesus himself; and that to trust in Jesus himself must lead to conforming oneself to him.
Sin Management (14) -- Dallas's term for the basic spiritual practices of the gospel of the "Just Forgiven" bumper sticker. Since this gospel preaches forgiveness without discipleship (and therefore without transformation), there is nothing left to do with sin but manage it.
I'm currently reading a book by Wheaton professor James Wilhoit called Spiritual Formation as if the Church Mattered, with a forward by Dallas. (My impression is that they have a strong personal relationship.) In chapter 3 of Spiritual Formation, James sets up two dimensions against which to measure someone's readiness to pursue intentional spiritual formation.
First is the sins/sin axis. On the sins side of the axis, the focus is on discrete external actions in violation of a moral code. On the sin side of the axis, the focus is on the internal attitudes and motivations springing from the sin nature in the heart.
Second is the yearnings fulfilled/yearnings persist axis. On the
yearnings fulfilled side, the belief is that the thirsts and desires of our hearts should be fulfilled by our salvation/conversion; if they continue, it is a sign of failure. On the yearnings continue side, the belief is that God will continue to use the yearnings and thirsts of our hearts even after salvation/conversion; their continued existence is a sign of grace.
James then sets these up into four quadrants. The sin/yearnings persist quadrant is the one most conducive to intentional spiritual formation. The opposite, sins/yearnings fulfilled, he labels Sin Management, saying [t]he spiritual life of this quadrant is marked by striving and denial. The Pharisees were adept sin managers, highly skilled in denying glaring omissions and heaping rules on the backs of others in a strategy of painstaking prevention of sins. [Spiritual Formation (62)] I'm pretty sure Dallas would agree.
James's typology helped me resolve my difficulty with the sentence, It is amusing that people will admit to lying, for example, but stoutly deny that they are liars. (14) Read one way, I saw Dallas seemingly defending a practice I consider to be the very definition of shame: sin as identity. Read another, I also saw that Dallas was calling for a deeper appreciation for the role of sin in our lives; that is, moving from the sins side of the axis to the sin side.
Simplicity (15) -- Dallas argues that a long-run benefit of discipleship is that brings our outer and inner lives into alignment. An amazing simplicity will take over our lives -- a simplicity that is really just transparency. Dallas takes advantage of a neat linguistic parallel to contrast this with the word duplicity, pointing out that the disharmony of outer and inner lives (that is, hypocrisy) is the hallmark characteristic of the Pharisee. [T]he Pharisee always fails at some point to do what is right, and then must redefine, redescribe, or explain it away -- or simply hide it.
Power and Authority (16) -- Dallas rounds out the chapter by talking about the power and authority of the disciple. Jesus is actually looking for people that he can trust with power. A consistent biblical theme is that obedience and good stewardship are rewarded with increased authority. By pursuing the character-forming habits of discipleship, we are shaped to carry greater divine power into situations were it is needed.
The Question for Someone who want Heaven without Discipleship (17) -- [Would] you really be comfortable for eternity in the presence of the One whose company you have not found especially desirable for the few hours and days of your earthly existence[?] This has interesting echoes with the imagery from CS Lewis's The Great Divorce.
Vampire Christianity (14) -- A sarcastic term for those whose only interest in Jesus is his blood. Dallas emphatically insists that one cannot trust in the blood of Jesus without actually trusting in Jesus himself; and that to trust in Jesus himself must lead to conforming oneself to him.
Sin Management (14) -- Dallas's term for the basic spiritual practices of the gospel of the "Just Forgiven" bumper sticker. Since this gospel preaches forgiveness without discipleship (and therefore without transformation), there is nothing left to do with sin but manage it.
I'm currently reading a book by Wheaton professor James Wilhoit called Spiritual Formation as if the Church Mattered, with a forward by Dallas. (My impression is that they have a strong personal relationship.) In chapter 3 of Spiritual Formation, James sets up two dimensions against which to measure someone's readiness to pursue intentional spiritual formation.
First is the sins/sin axis. On the sins side of the axis, the focus is on discrete external actions in violation of a moral code. On the sin side of the axis, the focus is on the internal attitudes and motivations springing from the sin nature in the heart.
Second is the yearnings fulfilled/yearnings persist axis. On the
yearnings fulfilled side, the belief is that the thirsts and desires of our hearts should be fulfilled by our salvation/conversion; if they continue, it is a sign of failure. On the yearnings continue side, the belief is that God will continue to use the yearnings and thirsts of our hearts even after salvation/conversion; their continued existence is a sign of grace.
James then sets these up into four quadrants. The sin/yearnings persist quadrant is the one most conducive to intentional spiritual formation. The opposite, sins/yearnings fulfilled, he labels Sin Management, saying [t]he spiritual life of this quadrant is marked by striving and denial. The Pharisees were adept sin managers, highly skilled in denying glaring omissions and heaping rules on the backs of others in a strategy of painstaking prevention of sins. [Spiritual Formation (62)] I'm pretty sure Dallas would agree.
James's typology helped me resolve my difficulty with the sentence, It is amusing that people will admit to lying, for example, but stoutly deny that they are liars. (14) Read one way, I saw Dallas seemingly defending a practice I consider to be the very definition of shame: sin as identity. Read another, I also saw that Dallas was calling for a deeper appreciation for the role of sin in our lives; that is, moving from the sins side of the axis to the sin side.
Simplicity (15) -- Dallas argues that a long-run benefit of discipleship is that brings our outer and inner lives into alignment. An amazing simplicity will take over our lives -- a simplicity that is really just transparency. Dallas takes advantage of a neat linguistic parallel to contrast this with the word duplicity, pointing out that the disharmony of outer and inner lives (that is, hypocrisy) is the hallmark characteristic of the Pharisee. [T]he Pharisee always fails at some point to do what is right, and then must redefine, redescribe, or explain it away -- or simply hide it.
Power and Authority (16) -- Dallas rounds out the chapter by talking about the power and authority of the disciple. Jesus is actually looking for people that he can trust with power. A consistent biblical theme is that obedience and good stewardship are rewarded with increased authority. By pursuing the character-forming habits of discipleship, we are shaped to carry greater divine power into situations were it is needed.
The Question for Someone who want Heaven without Discipleship (17) -- [Would] you really be comfortable for eternity in the presence of the One whose company you have not found especially desirable for the few hours and days of your earthly existence[?] This has interesting echoes with the imagery from CS Lewis's The Great Divorce.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Tony Jone and Pentecostalism and Emergence
If you guys are interested in the Tony Jones blog posts and comments threads I talked about, here are the links:
Starting post: Lengthy comment thread -- comment 18 has an early Pentecostal missionary's anti-patriotism credo which was very interesting
Death of Emergent: Compares Emergent today to the Jesus People movement of the 60s and 70s.
Origins: Has some of the Pentecostalism and Emergence as reactions to modernity discussion
Most Recently: Talks about the Trinitarianism of Pentecostalism vs the Christo-centric-ness of pre-emergent Protestantism.
Edited for one more: In which Tony reveals his thesis answer to the question what Pentecostals and Emergents can learn from each other.
Starting post: Lengthy comment thread -- comment 18 has an early Pentecostal missionary's anti-patriotism credo which was very interesting
Death of Emergent: Compares Emergent today to the Jesus People movement of the 60s and 70s.
Origins: Has some of the Pentecostalism and Emergence as reactions to modernity discussion
Most Recently: Talks about the Trinitarianism of Pentecostalism vs the Christo-centric-ness of pre-emergent Protestantism.
Edited for one more: In which Tony reveals his thesis answer to the question what Pentecostals and Emergents can learn from each other.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Faith and Discipleship; Willard and Borg
In modern American Protestant Christianity it seems the most important factor in whether or not you are saved is if you have "faith". Faith in Jesus as your personal lord and savior, faith in God, faith that the bible is truth- the list could continue. What is meant by "faith" in this use of the word is often just a synonym for "belief". So, when a lot of Christians say they have faith, they are talking all about the things they believe. This is a big part of Willard's argument in the intro and 1st chapter of his book: that the big goal in a lot of churches today is just to initiate believers, not train disciples. And when you try to tell believers that God wants them to be disciples, they start to look at you suspiciously (what Willard describes as the "bait and switch"- see Corey's blogs below for a good synopsis of the intro and chapter 1 of "The Great Omission").
Part of this misunderstanding stems from the narrow meaning of the word faith accepted by many Christians (I can speak from experience, since that is the meaning of faith I started out with). Marcus Borg addresses this issue of the meaning of faith in his book "The Heart of Christianity" (p 27-37). He describes the four meanings of faith as understood by Christians throughout our 2000 year history. Just as love is understood to have many levels of meaning (I love my Ipod but I love my wife) the meaning of faith is best understood as a multi-layered word and an understanding of faith that includes this multifaceted meaning leads more naturally to a life of discipleship.
The meaning of faith commonly understood today is one of Assensus (Latin), or faith as belief. Borg describes this as "a propositional understanding," whereby to have faith in this sense is to "[give] one's mental assent to a proposition, as believing that a claim or statement is true." Borg points out that the importance of this meaning stems from two historical developments. First, the Protestant Reformation, during which time the splintering of the church led to differing beliefs between the denominations and the emphasis on believing the "right beliefs". And second, the birth of the Scientific Method's emphasis on observable facts during the Enlightenment, which has further led to the modern practice of Christians having to mentally assent to a set of beliefs in opposition to "scientific" facts (but I'll save the Truth/Fact blog for another time- maybe someone else can do it- hint,hint). There is nothing wrong with this understanding of faith, but it should not be taken as the sole meaning.
The second meaning Borg describes is that of fiducia: "a radical trust in God". Not "trusting in the truth of a set of statements about God," but rather by entrusting our worries in the care of God. Borg contrasts fiducia with anxiety: "we can measure our degree of faith as trust by the amount of anxiety in our lives." (he also mentions that he uses this example not to give us something else to chastise ourselves about, but because if we learn to live in this "radical trust" it can have a transformative effect that will allow us to spend our time, not worrying, but experiencing life as God meant us to [hint- think discipleship].
The third meaning of faith in God, fidelitas, means "a radical centering in God"; "faithfulness to our relationship in God"; and "loyalty, allegiance the commitment of the self at the deepest level, the commitment of the heart". Again Borg distinguishes that this does not mean "faithfulness to statements about God, whether biblical, credal, or doctrinal...." but "to the God to whom the bible and creeds and doctrines point.". And the opposite of this would be adultery or idolatry- when we center or lives on something other than God. Borg also draws a parallel between the "radical centering in God" of fidelitas with the two greatest commandments: "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind and with all your strength...[and] you shall love your neighbor as yourself.". If we follow these commandments we are living faithfully.
Similarly, Willard describes disciples as those who, "intent upon becoming Christ-like and so dwelling in his "faith and practice", systematically and progressively [rearranges their] affairs to that end.". So a true life of faithfulness, centering one's life in God, is of the same meaning as being a disciple, rearranging one's life to be more Christ like and to live in his way (loving God and your neighbor).
Finally, the fourth meaning of faith is Visio, or vision: how we see reality. Borg describes three common ways of viewing life. One way is to view life as "hostile and threatening," a view which leads to fear, defensiveness, paranoia, an emphasis on self preservation and a tendency to build walls around ourselves, rather than open up to the strangers, the poor, the widows, etc. Some Christians even view God in this way if they see him as a vindictive God who is out to punish and condemn to Hell.
A second way to view reality is as "indifferent.". This is the modern secular view that you live however you want to live, doing whatever makes you happy within the bounds of societal norms... And then you die. It seems to me that the conjunction of a belief that Christianity is just belief in a few main ideas and a vision in the secular American dream has done more harm to the church in this country than homosexuality, abortion and Muslims (three of the things that seem to worry many conservatives- not to say that I condone abortion).
The third way of seeing reality, and the way that best fosters a life of faith, faithfulness, and discipleship, is to see it as "life giving and nourishing.". God is good and gracious, and life is not simply a trial we must endure before we die and go to heaven, but God wants us to live a full, enriched life "in radical trust...[free from] the anxiety, self-preoccupation and the concern to protect the self...[with] the ability to love and to be present to the moment...[generating] a 'willingness to spend and be spent' for the sake of a vision that goes beyond ourselves." (see also "waking the dead" by Eldredge).
It seems then that training disciples involves teaching a fuller understanding of faith. In hearing the verse "we are saved by our faith alone", if our understanding of faith is limited only to assensus, the "cost of discipleship" may seem, as Willard noted, more than we signed up for, or rather like a super Christianity, a premium level that you have to pay more for when in fact, most people settle for the "free trial version". But if we as the Church teach that faith means more than simply believing in X,Y and Z and that faith is a life of trust and faithfulness in God and a vision in the Kingdom of God on earth, we will be doing more to train disciples, rather than simply initiating members to our churches.
Part of this misunderstanding stems from the narrow meaning of the word faith accepted by many Christians (I can speak from experience, since that is the meaning of faith I started out with). Marcus Borg addresses this issue of the meaning of faith in his book "The Heart of Christianity" (p 27-37). He describes the four meanings of faith as understood by Christians throughout our 2000 year history. Just as love is understood to have many levels of meaning (I love my Ipod but I love my wife) the meaning of faith is best understood as a multi-layered word and an understanding of faith that includes this multifaceted meaning leads more naturally to a life of discipleship.
The meaning of faith commonly understood today is one of Assensus (Latin), or faith as belief. Borg describes this as "a propositional understanding," whereby to have faith in this sense is to "[give] one's mental assent to a proposition, as believing that a claim or statement is true." Borg points out that the importance of this meaning stems from two historical developments. First, the Protestant Reformation, during which time the splintering of the church led to differing beliefs between the denominations and the emphasis on believing the "right beliefs". And second, the birth of the Scientific Method's emphasis on observable facts during the Enlightenment, which has further led to the modern practice of Christians having to mentally assent to a set of beliefs in opposition to "scientific" facts (but I'll save the Truth/Fact blog for another time- maybe someone else can do it- hint,hint). There is nothing wrong with this understanding of faith, but it should not be taken as the sole meaning.
The second meaning Borg describes is that of fiducia: "a radical trust in God". Not "trusting in the truth of a set of statements about God," but rather by entrusting our worries in the care of God. Borg contrasts fiducia with anxiety: "we can measure our degree of faith as trust by the amount of anxiety in our lives." (he also mentions that he uses this example not to give us something else to chastise ourselves about, but because if we learn to live in this "radical trust" it can have a transformative effect that will allow us to spend our time, not worrying, but experiencing life as God meant us to [hint- think discipleship].
The third meaning of faith in God, fidelitas, means "a radical centering in God"; "faithfulness to our relationship in God"; and "loyalty, allegiance the commitment of the self at the deepest level, the commitment of the heart". Again Borg distinguishes that this does not mean "faithfulness to statements about God, whether biblical, credal, or doctrinal...." but "to the God to whom the bible and creeds and doctrines point.". And the opposite of this would be adultery or idolatry- when we center or lives on something other than God. Borg also draws a parallel between the "radical centering in God" of fidelitas with the two greatest commandments: "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind and with all your strength...[and] you shall love your neighbor as yourself.". If we follow these commandments we are living faithfully.
Similarly, Willard describes disciples as those who, "intent upon becoming Christ-like and so dwelling in his "faith and practice", systematically and progressively [rearranges their] affairs to that end.". So a true life of faithfulness, centering one's life in God, is of the same meaning as being a disciple, rearranging one's life to be more Christ like and to live in his way (loving God and your neighbor).
Finally, the fourth meaning of faith is Visio, or vision: how we see reality. Borg describes three common ways of viewing life. One way is to view life as "hostile and threatening," a view which leads to fear, defensiveness, paranoia, an emphasis on self preservation and a tendency to build walls around ourselves, rather than open up to the strangers, the poor, the widows, etc. Some Christians even view God in this way if they see him as a vindictive God who is out to punish and condemn to Hell.
A second way to view reality is as "indifferent.". This is the modern secular view that you live however you want to live, doing whatever makes you happy within the bounds of societal norms... And then you die. It seems to me that the conjunction of a belief that Christianity is just belief in a few main ideas and a vision in the secular American dream has done more harm to the church in this country than homosexuality, abortion and Muslims (three of the things that seem to worry many conservatives- not to say that I condone abortion).
The third way of seeing reality, and the way that best fosters a life of faith, faithfulness, and discipleship, is to see it as "life giving and nourishing.". God is good and gracious, and life is not simply a trial we must endure before we die and go to heaven, but God wants us to live a full, enriched life "in radical trust...[free from] the anxiety, self-preoccupation and the concern to protect the self...[with] the ability to love and to be present to the moment...[generating] a 'willingness to spend and be spent' for the sake of a vision that goes beyond ourselves." (see also "waking the dead" by Eldredge).
It seems then that training disciples involves teaching a fuller understanding of faith. In hearing the verse "we are saved by our faith alone", if our understanding of faith is limited only to assensus, the "cost of discipleship" may seem, as Willard noted, more than we signed up for, or rather like a super Christianity, a premium level that you have to pay more for when in fact, most people settle for the "free trial version". But if we as the Church teach that faith means more than simply believing in X,Y and Z and that faith is a life of trust and faithfulness in God and a vision in the Kingdom of God on earth, we will be doing more to train disciples, rather than simply initiating members to our churches.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Key Terms and Discussion from The Great Omission: Chapter 1
The Gospel Presupposes Discipleship (3) --
All of the assurances and benefits offered to humankind in the gospel evidently presuppose [a life of discipleship] and do not make realistic sense apart from it. The disciple of Jesus is not the deluxe or heavy-duty model of the Christian.... He or she stands as the first level of basic transportation in the Kingdom of God.
The Great Omission (4) -- Here it is in one brilliant paragraph:
[T]he churches of the Western world have not made discipleship a condition for being a Christian. One is not required to be, or to intend to be, a disciple in order to become a Christian, and one may remain a Christian without any signs of progress toward or in discipleship. Contemporary American churches in particular do not require following Christ in his example, spirit, or teachings as a condition of membership--either in of entering into or continuing in fellowship of a denomination or local church.
Bait and Switch (6) -- Dallas's term for one possible response of a Christian when offered discipleship. "This isn't what I signed up for. I was told that I said a prayer and got my ticket to heaven. What's this obedience thing about, now?"
The Way (7, passim) -- Dallas routinely mentions the Way of Jesus, which as I understand it was actually the first name for Christianity. I like this because it's the primary method by which I too distinguish between between the path of discipleship (the Way) and the great world-historical religio-cultural tradition (Christianity).
What a Disciple Is (7) --
The disciple is one who, intent upon becoming Christ-like and so dwelling in his "faith and practice", systematically and progressively rearranges his affairs to that end.
One of the recurring themes of our discussion in the chapter was how Dallas made us take stock of our own discipleship as much as (or perhaps even more than) he made us cheer about his scathing critique of discipleship-less Christianity.
The Cost of Non-Discipleship (9) -- Playing off of Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship and pointing back towards the first sentence I quoted in this post, Dallas points out that the cost of non-discipleship is staggeringly high. In short, non-discipleship costs you exactly that abundance of life that Jesus said he came to bring (John 10:10).
My interest in the cost of non-discipleship tends to be on its larger systematic effects on the church and the world, but it's also important to understand that cost of non-discipleship for the individual.
The Most Frightening Paragraph of Chapter One (11) --
For those who lead or minister, there are yet graver questions: What authority or basis do I have to baptize people who have not been brought to a clear decision to be a disciple of Christ? Dare I tell people, as "believers" without discipleship, that they are at peace with God and God with them? Where can I find justification for such a message? Perhaps more important: Do I as a minister have the faith to undertake the work of disciple-making? Is my first aim to make disciples? Or do I just run an operation?
All of the assurances and benefits offered to humankind in the gospel evidently presuppose [a life of discipleship] and do not make realistic sense apart from it. The disciple of Jesus is not the deluxe or heavy-duty model of the Christian.... He or she stands as the first level of basic transportation in the Kingdom of God.
The Great Omission (4) -- Here it is in one brilliant paragraph:
[T]he churches of the Western world have not made discipleship a condition for being a Christian. One is not required to be, or to intend to be, a disciple in order to become a Christian, and one may remain a Christian without any signs of progress toward or in discipleship. Contemporary American churches in particular do not require following Christ in his example, spirit, or teachings as a condition of membership--either in of entering into or continuing in fellowship of a denomination or local church.
Bait and Switch (6) -- Dallas's term for one possible response of a Christian when offered discipleship. "This isn't what I signed up for. I was told that I said a prayer and got my ticket to heaven. What's this obedience thing about, now?"
The Way (7, passim) -- Dallas routinely mentions the Way of Jesus, which as I understand it was actually the first name for Christianity. I like this because it's the primary method by which I too distinguish between between the path of discipleship (the Way) and the great world-historical religio-cultural tradition (Christianity).
What a Disciple Is (7) --
The disciple is one who, intent upon becoming Christ-like and so dwelling in his "faith and practice", systematically and progressively rearranges his affairs to that end.
One of the recurring themes of our discussion in the chapter was how Dallas made us take stock of our own discipleship as much as (or perhaps even more than) he made us cheer about his scathing critique of discipleship-less Christianity.
The Cost of Non-Discipleship (9) -- Playing off of Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship and pointing back towards the first sentence I quoted in this post, Dallas points out that the cost of non-discipleship is staggeringly high. In short, non-discipleship costs you exactly that abundance of life that Jesus said he came to bring (John 10:10).
My interest in the cost of non-discipleship tends to be on its larger systematic effects on the church and the world, but it's also important to understand that cost of non-discipleship for the individual.
The Most Frightening Paragraph of Chapter One (11) --
For those who lead or minister, there are yet graver questions: What authority or basis do I have to baptize people who have not been brought to a clear decision to be a disciple of Christ? Dare I tell people, as "believers" without discipleship, that they are at peace with God and God with them? Where can I find justification for such a message? Perhaps more important: Do I as a minister have the faith to undertake the work of disciple-making? Is my first aim to make disciples? Or do I just run an operation?
Key Terms and Discussion from The Great Omission: Introduction
Taking a cue from Mike's first couple of posts on the Didache (and wanting to actually contribute something here), here are some thoughts on The Great Omission in note form. (Numbers in parenthesis are page references)
The Great Disparity (x) -- the observed difference between the hope for life expressed in Jesus and the actual day-to-day behavior, inner life, and social presence of most of those who now profess adherence to him.
I first realized the Great Disparity existed when I was in high school, and that realization has been the primary seed for all the development of my personal theology since. The Great Disparity is so omnipresent that it was very hard to discern; yet once discerned, it is so staggeringly gigantic that I wondered how I had ever missed it.
The car analogy (x-xi) -- Dallas compares the life of the average Christian to someone who has tried to economize on gas by pouring some water in his or her gas tank but is then confused about why the car isn't working. It's not that the car's badly designed or manufactured, it's that it's not being used properly.
Disciples vs. Christians (xi) -- This seems to be the key idea for the whole book.
[D]isciples of Jesus are people who do not just profess certain view ... but apply their growing understanding of life in the Kingdom of the Heavens to every aspect of their life on earth. In contrast, the governing assumption today, among professing Christians, is that we can be "Christians" forver and never become discples.
Discipleship is my personal theological hobby-horse, stemming (as the title of the book alludes to) from the Great Commission. Simply put, the Great Commission is not about evangelism -- it's about discipleship. It says "go and make disciples" -- not mere admirers, not mere converts, not mere believers, not even mere worshipers -- disciples.
A disiciple is a learner, a student, an apprentice--a practitioner, even if only a beginner.
Where common evangelicalism puts its emphasis on knowing or believing, discipleship-oriented Christianity puts its emphasis on being and becoming. Where common evangelicalism puts its emphasis your relationship to abstract doctrines, discipleship-oriented Christianity puts its emphasis on your relationship to Jesus as teacher and master.
Missionaries to the Christians (xii) -- our shared sense that our own churches are amongst those who need to be told the Good News -- a Good News that goes beyond securing life after to death to fostering life before death.
People in Western Churches, and especially in North America, usually assume without thinking that the Great Commission of Jesus is something to be carried out in other countries. .... But in fact the primary mission field for the Great Commission today is made up of the churches of Europe and North America.
My own sense of alienation from the evangelical culture I grew up in has sky-rocketed over the past year and half I've been back home. And that's given me a new appreciation for wide swaths of Scripture. The relationship between the prophets and the Jewish people, or between Jesus and the Pharisees, or between Paul and the Judaizers have all taken on new resonance because it seems to echo my own feelings for my fellow evangelicals. And the common theme there is the battle over the value of participation and membership in a particular religous culture. And it is simulataneously infuriating and comforting to discover that this is not a new dynamic, but a very, very old one.
Disicpleship, Eschatology, and Mission (xiv) -- I can't remember if this was actually our jumping off point for our discussion of eschatology last week or not, but these sentence reminded me of it:
As disciples of Jesus, we today are part of God's world project. But realization of that project, it must never be forgotten, is the effect, not the life itself. The mission naturally flows from the life. It is not an afterthought, or something we might overlook or omit as we live the life.
The area where my still-developing theology of discipleship has given me the most comfort is eschatology. Growing up, "eschatology" meant Left-Behindism. Fortunately, discipleship-oriented Christianity seems fundamentally incompatible with Left-Behindism, and I think that first sentence there captures a big part of the reason why. Left-Behindism's God is basically just biding his time before he wantonly destroys his creation. But the God-who-disciples is actually doing something, building something, creating something -- he has a world project. It won't see fruition until this creation undergoes death and resurrection, but we're not sitting around waiting for the special-effects show to kick in. We get to participate in what God's doing now to prepare for later.
The second part of the quotion is a useful corrective that I'm still soaking in. So far as labels go, I'm very attracted to missional Christianity (as opposed to the label emergent or other similar ones). And I can very easily imagine how, over time, a commitment to mission could lead to the belief that pursuing mission brings life. Dallas' statement that receiving life then flows into mission is something that I want to internalize.
The Shack in one sentence (xiv) -- The eternal life, from which many profound and glorious effects flow, is interactive relationship with God and with his special Son, Jesus, within the abiding ambience of the Holy Spirit.
My sense of calling in one sentence (xv) -- So the greatest issue facing the world today, with all its heart-breaking needs, is whether those who, by profession or culture, are identified as "Christians" will become disciples--students, apprectices, practitioners--of Jesus Christ, steadily learning from him how to live the life of the Kingdom of the Heavens into every corner of human existence.
The Great Disparity (x) -- the observed difference between the hope for life expressed in Jesus and the actual day-to-day behavior, inner life, and social presence of most of those who now profess adherence to him.
I first realized the Great Disparity existed when I was in high school, and that realization has been the primary seed for all the development of my personal theology since. The Great Disparity is so omnipresent that it was very hard to discern; yet once discerned, it is so staggeringly gigantic that I wondered how I had ever missed it.
The car analogy (x-xi) -- Dallas compares the life of the average Christian to someone who has tried to economize on gas by pouring some water in his or her gas tank but is then confused about why the car isn't working. It's not that the car's badly designed or manufactured, it's that it's not being used properly.
Disciples vs. Christians (xi) -- This seems to be the key idea for the whole book.
[D]isciples of Jesus are people who do not just profess certain view ... but apply their growing understanding of life in the Kingdom of the Heavens to every aspect of their life on earth. In contrast, the governing assumption today, among professing Christians, is that we can be "Christians" forver and never become discples.
Discipleship is my personal theological hobby-horse, stemming (as the title of the book alludes to) from the Great Commission. Simply put, the Great Commission is not about evangelism -- it's about discipleship. It says "go and make disciples" -- not mere admirers, not mere converts, not mere believers, not even mere worshipers -- disciples.
A disiciple is a learner, a student, an apprentice--a practitioner, even if only a beginner.
Where common evangelicalism puts its emphasis on knowing or believing, discipleship-oriented Christianity puts its emphasis on being and becoming. Where common evangelicalism puts its emphasis your relationship to abstract doctrines, discipleship-oriented Christianity puts its emphasis on your relationship to Jesus as teacher and master.
Missionaries to the Christians (xii) -- our shared sense that our own churches are amongst those who need to be told the Good News -- a Good News that goes beyond securing life after to death to fostering life before death.
People in Western Churches, and especially in North America, usually assume without thinking that the Great Commission of Jesus is something to be carried out in other countries. .... But in fact the primary mission field for the Great Commission today is made up of the churches of Europe and North America.
My own sense of alienation from the evangelical culture I grew up in has sky-rocketed over the past year and half I've been back home. And that's given me a new appreciation for wide swaths of Scripture. The relationship between the prophets and the Jewish people, or between Jesus and the Pharisees, or between Paul and the Judaizers have all taken on new resonance because it seems to echo my own feelings for my fellow evangelicals. And the common theme there is the battle over the value of participation and membership in a particular religous culture. And it is simulataneously infuriating and comforting to discover that this is not a new dynamic, but a very, very old one.
Disicpleship, Eschatology, and Mission (xiv) -- I can't remember if this was actually our jumping off point for our discussion of eschatology last week or not, but these sentence reminded me of it:
As disciples of Jesus, we today are part of God's world project. But realization of that project, it must never be forgotten, is the effect, not the life itself. The mission naturally flows from the life. It is not an afterthought, or something we might overlook or omit as we live the life.
The area where my still-developing theology of discipleship has given me the most comfort is eschatology. Growing up, "eschatology" meant Left-Behindism. Fortunately, discipleship-oriented Christianity seems fundamentally incompatible with Left-Behindism, and I think that first sentence there captures a big part of the reason why. Left-Behindism's God is basically just biding his time before he wantonly destroys his creation. But the God-who-disciples is actually doing something, building something, creating something -- he has a world project. It won't see fruition until this creation undergoes death and resurrection, but we're not sitting around waiting for the special-effects show to kick in. We get to participate in what God's doing now to prepare for later.
The second part of the quotion is a useful corrective that I'm still soaking in. So far as labels go, I'm very attracted to missional Christianity (as opposed to the label emergent or other similar ones). And I can very easily imagine how, over time, a commitment to mission could lead to the belief that pursuing mission brings life. Dallas' statement that receiving life then flows into mission is something that I want to internalize.
The Shack in one sentence (xiv) -- The eternal life, from which many profound and glorious effects flow, is interactive relationship with God and with his special Son, Jesus, within the abiding ambience of the Holy Spirit.
My sense of calling in one sentence (xv) -- So the greatest issue facing the world today, with all its heart-breaking needs, is whether those who, by profession or culture, are identified as "Christians" will become disciples--students, apprectices, practitioners--of Jesus Christ, steadily learning from him how to live the life of the Kingdom of the Heavens into every corner of human existence.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Perfection
“Be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect” Jesus
“Aim for perfection” – Paul the Apostle
“…he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you’” – Paul the Apostle
“For if you are able to bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able, then at least do what you can” The Didache [6:2]
“Perfection never was a requirement, although some might say we desired it.” Five Iron Frenzy
Growing up a Christian in a fairly conservative Protestant church I was given mixed signals. Some Christians, despite claiming a belief in Grace, seem to expect nothing less than perfection. Perhaps I felt this pressure more as a pastor’s kid, but I think that all kids in church feel like they are under the microscope from parents and elders. Grace, grace, grace is taught and preached, but the weight of high behavioral expectations grow with your age. Some church kids rebel from the start, enjoying every sin they can. Some hold out for some time, trying to live up to the expectations and feeling guilt for every time they slip up, and all the while trying to keep up appearances. In some groups this leads to a cult of perfection. What I witnessed was the complete depletion of my age group as we moved towards high school graduation. By the time I returned from college there were very few twenty-somethings in my former church at all – and I say former because I too have left.
To some, it seems, Christianity is nothing more than behavioral control, a list of impossible rules with the promise of pie in the sky. That is what I suspect drove off many former child church goers and prevents others from giving it a try. But I know there are many who have stayed interested in their faith, and still value it. I suppose I can only speak for myself, and this is true for me. But my beliefs have stayed important to me because I have come to understand the meaning of grace. When I was a child growing up in church, I heard the word “grace” a lot. But I did not truly understand grace, or at least not nearly as well as the expectation for perfection. Because when I saw people step out of line, the reaction from adults, parents and other kids was usually not modeling grace – it was typically punishment, disapproval or judgment.
Now, I am not perfect (just ask my wife, friends, family, and co-workers) and I do not claim to be perfect (though Molly would say I act like I think I am). But I spent most of my childhood and teen years, growing up a non-rebellious church kid, feeling guilty for not being perfect. And that was despite the fact that I knew in my mind that perfection was not the requirement; that any perfection is only by grace. But as I have said, it took me a while to understand the meaning of grace…
Reading the Didache, I wonder why I did not hear more lines such as the one I quoted above when I was growing up. And even as I wrote that rhetorical question I know the answer…. If you can follow the teachings of the Lord, you will be perfect. If not, do what you can. This is not a very “bright line” rule, not an easy rule to raise children by. Instead, it is much easier to tell your kids to be perfect. For I suppose if you tell your children to try to be perfect, but if they cannot, to do what they can, then they may “do what they can” into all sorts of undesirable situations: “well, I know I shouldn’t __________, but I did what I could!”
But, it is not easy to try to follow Christ’s teachings, and I am not convinced it is supposed to be a simple matter of behaving yourself. I have only stayed a Christian because I have come to understand the meaning of grace. Had I not come to understand it, and still only believed Christianity to be a list of impossible rules with the promise of pie in the sky, I perhaps would have abandoned the faith of my childhood by now. But as it turned out, I have stuck with it. And though I am not perfect (just ask my wife, family, friends and co-workers), I do what I can.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Grapes
"The oft-quoted Lyotardian maxim that postmondernity is an incredulity toward metanarrartives means that we tilt our heads skepically when someone (especially a religious leader) pronounces, 'There are two ways!' In response, we ask, 'What's she selling? Who's he been duped by? And who are you to tell me that there are only two ways!'
To our current way of being, 'There are two ways, one of life and one of death!' comes as a cold cup of water in the face. It smacks of religious inotolerance. And yet, it must be dealt with. We must face it head-on and with all seriousness." (pg. 49)
For a little bit of time now some of my friends on this very blog have been "encouraging" me to add some of my thoughts about the Didache. So, I was reading the above text and it made me think of an analogy myself and some of my friends worked through a couple of weeks ago. (You know who you are if you are reading this. :))
We started comparing our experience in the American Church to the fake, plastic, fruit bowl that sits on some dining room tables. That bowl of cheap, flismy, plastic fruit that appears to be so vibrant and so real. Eventually, we even narrowed it down, specifically, to a grape.
Imagine being around a table of people all eating grapes, only they aren't eating real grapes, they're eating the fake plastic ones. Now, what if you're only experience with grapes is with the fake plastic grapes? You have never encountered an actual real grape in your life, so your definition of a grape is based souly on your experience with this fake, cheap, plastic piece of fruit.
Then, not only are you eating this phony piece of food, but everybody at the table is trying to convince you that not only is this "grape" delicious, but it is the best piece of cusine that ever exsited. You can't help but sit there and look at these people as if they are certifiably insane. You have tasted this "grape" and not only is disgusting, it inedible! You would never want to eat another grape in your life.
What happens then when you are in a situation with people who are actually eating the real deal? You are going to automatically dismiss the grape as being fake based on your previous experiences, and you are going to be completely insulted by this new group of people who are insisiting that this grape is actually great food.
I feel like this sums up my experience in the church. People have tried to convince me for so long that the "Christianity" that gets propagated in most main stream churches is the real thing. Yet, I find it be as fake and plastic as the grape on the dinner table. There is no nourishment in the fake grape, it doesn't fill you up, or alleviate your hunger pains.
However, the real grape exsits, and I have tasted it, and it is delicious. So let me be the one to "sell" the real grape folks. It IS delicious and nourishing, and don't ever be afraid to go after the real thing, and don't be afraid to turn down the fake. Accept no substitutes! Please do not let the fake grapes disuade you from the real deal.
So, to sum it up, I feel it necessary to say this, "Jesus is real." He is tangibly real, and he wants to walk beside, heal us, and show us how to live our lives in a radical and transformitive way.
Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. Phil 3:13-14
To our current way of being, 'There are two ways, one of life and one of death!' comes as a cold cup of water in the face. It smacks of religious inotolerance. And yet, it must be dealt with. We must face it head-on and with all seriousness." (pg. 49)
For a little bit of time now some of my friends on this very blog have been "encouraging" me to add some of my thoughts about the Didache. So, I was reading the above text and it made me think of an analogy myself and some of my friends worked through a couple of weeks ago. (You know who you are if you are reading this. :))
We started comparing our experience in the American Church to the fake, plastic, fruit bowl that sits on some dining room tables. That bowl of cheap, flismy, plastic fruit that appears to be so vibrant and so real. Eventually, we even narrowed it down, specifically, to a grape.
Imagine being around a table of people all eating grapes, only they aren't eating real grapes, they're eating the fake plastic ones. Now, what if you're only experience with grapes is with the fake plastic grapes? You have never encountered an actual real grape in your life, so your definition of a grape is based souly on your experience with this fake, cheap, plastic piece of fruit.
Then, not only are you eating this phony piece of food, but everybody at the table is trying to convince you that not only is this "grape" delicious, but it is the best piece of cusine that ever exsited. You can't help but sit there and look at these people as if they are certifiably insane. You have tasted this "grape" and not only is disgusting, it inedible! You would never want to eat another grape in your life.
What happens then when you are in a situation with people who are actually eating the real deal? You are going to automatically dismiss the grape as being fake based on your previous experiences, and you are going to be completely insulted by this new group of people who are insisiting that this grape is actually great food.
I feel like this sums up my experience in the church. People have tried to convince me for so long that the "Christianity" that gets propagated in most main stream churches is the real thing. Yet, I find it be as fake and plastic as the grape on the dinner table. There is no nourishment in the fake grape, it doesn't fill you up, or alleviate your hunger pains.
However, the real grape exsits, and I have tasted it, and it is delicious. So let me be the one to "sell" the real grape folks. It IS delicious and nourishing, and don't ever be afraid to go after the real thing, and don't be afraid to turn down the fake. Accept no substitutes! Please do not let the fake grapes disuade you from the real deal.
So, to sum it up, I feel it necessary to say this, "Jesus is real." He is tangibly real, and he wants to walk beside, heal us, and show us how to live our lives in a radical and transformitive way.
Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. Phil 3:13-14
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Didache
In the Didache, as Trucker Frank points out (p. 63), the emphasis is on Orthopraxy-how you live- rather than on the orthodoxy (right thinking) that was the emphasis of later church councils and is often the sum of many sermons today...(just believe the proper things and you are "in"- don't believe all the right things and you are out!).
Does the Didache's emphasis on how to live "right" conflict with a belief in salvation by faith? It seems to me that this emphasis on orthopraxy is not for the purpose of achieving salvation. Rather, the emphasis on how to live was to foster a community among believers who believed in Jesus and to teach how they should treat others.
For what are we saved anyway? For a pleasant afterlife? Or, for a rich this-life as well? Do enough churches today teach their people how to live with one another in community, and how to treat others as we would want to be treated (and how to not treat people the way we wouldn't want to be treated)? Or, are they simply cutting the teaching off after telling them about salvation? Does the Gospel just include the Son of God who was crucified, died, buried and resurrected? Or does it also tell of the Son of God who lived among the people and told them how to live together? Is the kingdom somewhere we go when we die? Or is it a place that we are meant to inhabit while we are still alive? I have faith in my soul's eternal salvation. Now, teach me how to live until then.
Does the Didache's emphasis on how to live "right" conflict with a belief in salvation by faith? It seems to me that this emphasis on orthopraxy is not for the purpose of achieving salvation. Rather, the emphasis on how to live was to foster a community among believers who believed in Jesus and to teach how they should treat others.
For what are we saved anyway? For a pleasant afterlife? Or, for a rich this-life as well? Do enough churches today teach their people how to live with one another in community, and how to treat others as we would want to be treated (and how to not treat people the way we wouldn't want to be treated)? Or, are they simply cutting the teaching off after telling them about salvation? Does the Gospel just include the Son of God who was crucified, died, buried and resurrected? Or does it also tell of the Son of God who lived among the people and told them how to live together? Is the kingdom somewhere we go when we die? Or is it a place that we are meant to inhabit while we are still alive? I have faith in my soul's eternal salvation. Now, teach me how to live until then.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Didache first thoughts:
Didache first thoughts:
It is about how to live.
Earliest example of liturgy?
It is contemporaneous with the Gospels- it shares some important stuff- the two greatest commandments, the Lord's prayer, parts of
Jesus' sermons...
It is about how to live.
Earliest example of liturgy?
It is contemporaneous with the Gospels- it shares some important stuff- the two greatest commandments, the Lord's prayer, parts of
Jesus' sermons...
If any teacher or prophet asks for money he is a false prophet!
If any prophet teaches the truth but does not follow their own teachings, they are a false prophet!
Question: Why fast Wednesdays and Fridays instead of Mondays and Thursdays?
Friday, January 1, 2010
Two Ways
"There are two ways, one of life and one of death!
and there is a great difference between the two ways."
and there is a great difference between the two ways."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)