Every once in awhile I read or hear the phrase “God's scandalous grace” or “God's scandalous love”. (Like, about 10 minutes ago.)
So, I Googled the phrase “God's scandalous” and also found mercy, generosity, acceptance, and others.
Scandalous means: disgraceful; shameful or shocking; improper—words you wouldn't think fit in the same sentence as “God”.
But think about it. Remember some of the stories of Jesus' dealings with people.
Sinners.
Tax collectors.
Prostitutes.
Foreigners.
Thieves.
The way He dealt with them! Treating them as nicely as you would treat the queen.
Caring about their situation.
Forgiving them.
Affirming them.
Healing them.
It's scandalous, I tell you! Disgraceful, shameful, shocking, improper.
Why, we know better. We wouldn't do that. We know how to read people, we can tell those who deserve to be shunned, ignored, berated.
Those who aren't worth our time of day.
Those who are only fit to burn in hell.
But Jesus, now.
Why, He acted like He didn't know they were bad people, like they were normal.
He treated them like He treats me.
He loved them.
So where do we get off treating some people the way we do and saying we are followers of Christ?
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Hmmm
I've been reading some commentary about the place of scripture within our theology, and my mind has meandered down some interesting paths.
I think it is very telling and interesting to see what is the center of attention in a church sanctuary.
If you were to visit a wide variety of Christian churches, from a wide variety of 'flavors' of faith, you would notice a few things.
Old cathedrals (and even new ones) tend to be tall and awe-inspiring—pointing to the awesomeness and grandness of our God.
They are often built in the shape of a cross, with the altar being raised, front and center. Various activities (sermons, readings, music, etc.) happen from various locations other than the altar, but the center of attention, and the center of the service is the mass/communion/eucharist.
To me this says that for centuries, the center of worship was remembering the death of Christ. It happened every week (as happened in the early church), and was the prime reason of gathering together (again as was the practice of the early church).
An interesting sidenote: all of the scripture readings are read from the pulpit or lectern, except the Gospel reading which is delivered in the center of the congregation. This points to the value given to the words of Christ, and the centrality of his teaching to the life of the congregation, beyond any other parts of scripture.
As the Reformation began to affect theology as well as church government and style of worship, the pulpit (place where the sermon is delivered from) was moved from the side to the center. Evangelical churches tend to have the pulpit on a raised platform, with the altar usually directly in front and at floor level.
This points to the importance given to scripture being read and taught. Have you ever noticed that Paul tends to be preached more than Jesus? Or is that just my own observation?
In effect, scripture has taken precedence over the celebration of the sacrifice of Christ.
Another sidenote: Roman Catholic and Anglican churches still have the celebration of the mass/eucharist as a central part of each weekly service. Evangelicals tend to 'add it on' to one service a month.
Most of the previous probably isn't new news to most of you, although you may not have recognized the underlying significance of the shift.
Now for something new!
Look at today's charismatic/evangelical/contemporary church sanctuary design and order of service.
The pulpit may well be something more portable, and the center of the stage (not really considered the altar any more) is the worship band and the projection screen.
The first (and often longest) part of the service is the music/worship. Various aspects of prayer and personal ministry are made available during this time.
To me, this says the most important part of the gathering together is worship. In my particular fellowship, we went months without having a communion service. In recent months, a 'self-serve' communion table has been re-instated, available for anyone at any time during the service.
So, what's my point?
I'm not sure. For one thing, there has obviously been a shift over the past few centuries. Fortunately, all the 'flavors' are still available, but the unspoken message seems to be that our priorities have changed.
I might have come to the conclusion that this is a good thing that came about as people became more aware of the importance of scripture, and then worship/personal ministry.
However, perhaps it is as some are saying—it is more an adaptation of the church to the prevailing worldview and philosophy of the day.
For centuries, God was a mystery, dispensed in weekly doses by the clergy. This suited the era preceding the middle ages.
By the time of the Reformation, science was also coming into its own, and people were beginning to experiment and research, looking for answers to every question. It became reasonable to assume that there was an answer to every dilemma, every problem could be solved. Both the Bible and the clergy became expected to be part of this search for answers. Instead of enjoying the mystery, people needed to understand everything, solve everything, find absolute truth.
Perhaps the Bible was promoted from 'the Word of God' to 'the answer to all of man's questions'. Not only is it a record of historical events, poetry, and commentary on how to live out ones faith in the culture of the day, but now it is expected to have something to say on everything from terrorism to technology (and don't forget how the world will end!).
This may well have not been noticed by all of us who have had several centuries of modernism to come to expect such answers—until post-modernism started stirring up the pot.
Now there is a generation of people who have lost faith in absolutes—whether in science or faith. When one day oat flakes are supposed to be the cure for high cholesterol, and the next day they are nothing more than another breakfast food, people are losing their faith in 'scientific breakthroughs'. At the same time, they see one church promoting one method of baptism, and another church advocating another. Or one church saying supernatural gifts are for today, and another saying they are of the devil. All of these seem to have some scriptural basis to back up the particular belief.
So, the average unchurched guy figures no one knows what they are talking about, and the Bible can be made to say just about anything you want it to. Oh, I know advocates of whatever point of view can claim to be more 'scriptural' than the other guys, but it often boils down to trying to truly understand what the original text meant to the original hearers, and if it was cultural or not, and on it goes.
The end result is that post-modernism is replacing modernism, and much of the church hasn't noticed. We're still trying to figure out if hymn books are more spiritual than song projection, or at what point during the tribulation the rapture will take place.
Hmmmm.
I think it is very telling and interesting to see what is the center of attention in a church sanctuary.
If you were to visit a wide variety of Christian churches, from a wide variety of 'flavors' of faith, you would notice a few things.
Old cathedrals (and even new ones) tend to be tall and awe-inspiring—pointing to the awesomeness and grandness of our God.
They are often built in the shape of a cross, with the altar being raised, front and center. Various activities (sermons, readings, music, etc.) happen from various locations other than the altar, but the center of attention, and the center of the service is the mass/communion/eucharist.
To me this says that for centuries, the center of worship was remembering the death of Christ. It happened every week (as happened in the early church), and was the prime reason of gathering together (again as was the practice of the early church).
An interesting sidenote: all of the scripture readings are read from the pulpit or lectern, except the Gospel reading which is delivered in the center of the congregation. This points to the value given to the words of Christ, and the centrality of his teaching to the life of the congregation, beyond any other parts of scripture.
As the Reformation began to affect theology as well as church government and style of worship, the pulpit (place where the sermon is delivered from) was moved from the side to the center. Evangelical churches tend to have the pulpit on a raised platform, with the altar usually directly in front and at floor level.
This points to the importance given to scripture being read and taught. Have you ever noticed that Paul tends to be preached more than Jesus? Or is that just my own observation?
In effect, scripture has taken precedence over the celebration of the sacrifice of Christ.
Another sidenote: Roman Catholic and Anglican churches still have the celebration of the mass/eucharist as a central part of each weekly service. Evangelicals tend to 'add it on' to one service a month.
Most of the previous probably isn't new news to most of you, although you may not have recognized the underlying significance of the shift.
Now for something new!
Look at today's charismatic/evangelical/contemporary church sanctuary design and order of service.
The pulpit may well be something more portable, and the center of the stage (not really considered the altar any more) is the worship band and the projection screen.
The first (and often longest) part of the service is the music/worship. Various aspects of prayer and personal ministry are made available during this time.
To me, this says the most important part of the gathering together is worship. In my particular fellowship, we went months without having a communion service. In recent months, a 'self-serve' communion table has been re-instated, available for anyone at any time during the service.
So, what's my point?
I'm not sure. For one thing, there has obviously been a shift over the past few centuries. Fortunately, all the 'flavors' are still available, but the unspoken message seems to be that our priorities have changed.
I might have come to the conclusion that this is a good thing that came about as people became more aware of the importance of scripture, and then worship/personal ministry.
However, perhaps it is as some are saying—it is more an adaptation of the church to the prevailing worldview and philosophy of the day.
For centuries, God was a mystery, dispensed in weekly doses by the clergy. This suited the era preceding the middle ages.
By the time of the Reformation, science was also coming into its own, and people were beginning to experiment and research, looking for answers to every question. It became reasonable to assume that there was an answer to every dilemma, every problem could be solved. Both the Bible and the clergy became expected to be part of this search for answers. Instead of enjoying the mystery, people needed to understand everything, solve everything, find absolute truth.
Perhaps the Bible was promoted from 'the Word of God' to 'the answer to all of man's questions'. Not only is it a record of historical events, poetry, and commentary on how to live out ones faith in the culture of the day, but now it is expected to have something to say on everything from terrorism to technology (and don't forget how the world will end!).
This may well have not been noticed by all of us who have had several centuries of modernism to come to expect such answers—until post-modernism started stirring up the pot.
Now there is a generation of people who have lost faith in absolutes—whether in science or faith. When one day oat flakes are supposed to be the cure for high cholesterol, and the next day they are nothing more than another breakfast food, people are losing their faith in 'scientific breakthroughs'. At the same time, they see one church promoting one method of baptism, and another church advocating another. Or one church saying supernatural gifts are for today, and another saying they are of the devil. All of these seem to have some scriptural basis to back up the particular belief.
So, the average unchurched guy figures no one knows what they are talking about, and the Bible can be made to say just about anything you want it to. Oh, I know advocates of whatever point of view can claim to be more 'scriptural' than the other guys, but it often boils down to trying to truly understand what the original text meant to the original hearers, and if it was cultural or not, and on it goes.
The end result is that post-modernism is replacing modernism, and much of the church hasn't noticed. We're still trying to figure out if hymn books are more spiritual than song projection, or at what point during the tribulation the rapture will take place.
Hmmmm.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Why?
Why do I sporadically write stuff on this blog?
I suppose a simple answer is 'Why not?'
The technology exists, and with any luck, people might actually read it.
But that really is a bit "conceited, egoistic, egoistical, egomaniacal, egotistic, egotistical, individualist, individualistic, megalomaniac, narcissistic, pompous, self-absorbed, self-centered, self-concerned, self-indulgent, self-interested, self-loving, self-serving, selfish, stuck-up, vainglorious, wrapped up in oneself." (Don't you just love thesauruses? or is that thesauri?)
Truthfully, though, I think I have two reasons for dispensing my questionable wisdom on you, my hapless victims.
1. Sometimes, I just can't help but write. A thought starts swirling and swelling, just looking for a chance to erupt unsuspectingly on my fellow web travelers. It may not seem like anything profound, but it seems to be something that is looking to have life breathed into it. I like parables, similes, metaphors--stories that illustrate deeper but less tangible concepts. Sometimes I think others will enjoy that spark of inspiration that darts through those itty bitty wires attached to your computer.
2. Sometimes, I feel like I need to change the world. I consider myself much more of a philosopher and a poet than a prophet, but some of the things I am musing about need to have a wider audience than just my heart. At least I think others need to hear them.
If you are a regular reader of this blog, you may have noticed various rants about the church and theology lately. Firstly, they are things smoldering in my own heart. Secondly, I think there is value in stirring up the pot so you at least think about them as well.
This brings me to a concluding point. I'd love for you to respond to things that either resonate or irritate your spirit. I'd love to hear your comments--not just what bounces back from the things you have been taught, but what really surfaces when your heart and brain are engaged.
I know I have had visitors from every continent except South America (and Antarctica, but that is likely to be expected!) However, I really don't have too much of a clue who some of you are--and I'd like to know. I've met some really cool people through the blogs I follow, and I'd like to be able to say the same about you. So, I encourage you to sign up as a follower (No, it's not like being my disciple, you silly!).
Meanwhile, thanks for stopping by. And be sure to grab a coffee or a nice cuppa tea and come by again.
I suppose a simple answer is 'Why not?'
The technology exists, and with any luck, people might actually read it.
But that really is a bit "conceited, egoistic, egoistical, egomaniacal, egotistic, egotistical, individualist, individualistic, megalomaniac, narcissistic, pompous, self-absorbed, self-centered, self-concerned, self-indulgent, self-interested, self-loving, self-serving, selfish, stuck-up, vainglorious, wrapped up in oneself." (Don't you just love thesauruses? or is that thesauri?)
Truthfully, though, I think I have two reasons for dispensing my questionable wisdom on you, my hapless victims.
1. Sometimes, I just can't help but write. A thought starts swirling and swelling, just looking for a chance to erupt unsuspectingly on my fellow web travelers. It may not seem like anything profound, but it seems to be something that is looking to have life breathed into it. I like parables, similes, metaphors--stories that illustrate deeper but less tangible concepts. Sometimes I think others will enjoy that spark of inspiration that darts through those itty bitty wires attached to your computer.
2. Sometimes, I feel like I need to change the world. I consider myself much more of a philosopher and a poet than a prophet, but some of the things I am musing about need to have a wider audience than just my heart. At least I think others need to hear them.
If you are a regular reader of this blog, you may have noticed various rants about the church and theology lately. Firstly, they are things smoldering in my own heart. Secondly, I think there is value in stirring up the pot so you at least think about them as well.
This brings me to a concluding point. I'd love for you to respond to things that either resonate or irritate your spirit. I'd love to hear your comments--not just what bounces back from the things you have been taught, but what really surfaces when your heart and brain are engaged.
I know I have had visitors from every continent except South America (and Antarctica, but that is likely to be expected!) However, I really don't have too much of a clue who some of you are--and I'd like to know. I've met some really cool people through the blogs I follow, and I'd like to be able to say the same about you. So, I encourage you to sign up as a follower (No, it's not like being my disciple, you silly!).
Meanwhile, thanks for stopping by. And be sure to grab a coffee or a nice cuppa tea and come by again.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
A rant about church and theology
That title should be enough to scare some of you away. But I hope there are others of you who are concerned enough with where the church is and is going to keep reading.
A recent blog by my fellow hare-brained loose cannon Peter
got me thinking. He's quite good at that!
He refers to the 'Wesleyan Quadrilateral'.
Wikipedia defines it saying that“ Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions. The four sources are:
Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ”
I believe it is time that the church returned to a place where all four are operating in balance.
This resonates with me in two ways:
--That there is great value in having all four areas involved in developing our understanding of God (theology), and
--Church should be a safe place to explore all four, a place to discuss with people who share your desire to come to a fuller understanding and practice of your understanding of God.
Scripture. My experience (fairly limited, I admit) has been that church tends to be the presentation of a singular point of view. Although it purports to be 'scriptural', that point of view is not usually open to discussion or deeper study as to whether the point being presented is a legitimate understanding of scripture, based on as full an understanding as possible of the place, culture and language of the time, and purpose of writing. It seems to me that sermons are more a monologue than a dialogue, and not much place (if any) is provided to truly study and converse together. So, although the Bible is used as a foundation for the teaching, there often is no place for people to bring tradition, reason, and experience into the conversation in a desire to better understand the full message of that scripture. Add to that the tendency of some people to say “The Bible says __________” with the not-so-subtle inference that any other interpretation is denying the authority of scripture. That alone is valid cause for making sure that tradition, reason, and experience are all part of the process of understanding what God wants us to learn and live from the Bible. For too long people have taken their particular understanding of scripture (often based as much on tradition as good exegesis) and said that any other understanding is evil, wrong, against God, or whatever other words they can use to keep the flock in line—sometimes to the detriment of a Christ-like character. (The Crusades, slavery, anti-abortion militancy, treatment of gays and other unloving actions come to mind.)
Tradition. It seems to me that many denominations are either quite open to the past 2000 years of church tradition, or quite closed to it. Tradition either figures largely in the content, government and style of a church, or very little (although even new denominations seem to have formed their own contemporary traditions). I think it is time to recognize the strength of the past, but to also be ready to move ahead. Tossing out 2000 years of wisdom and experience in favor of the last few decades can easily doom us to repeating mistakes that have already been made. We have accumulated a lot of wisdom and understanding over the past two millennia. On the other hand, speaking in a centuries-old style in today's world only serves to demonstrate to a person outside of the church that faith is outdated and out of touch with reality. A balance is necessary.
Reason. There seemed to be an era in parts of the church when reason was considered evil. Higher education was shunned, individual thought was denounced. Anything that seemed to question the 'traditional/fundamentalist' view of scripture was immediately branded as diabolic and tossed out, even if there may well have been a need for some new insight. For example, any discussion on the Genesis creation account that didn't include six literal days, or a 6000 year-old earth, or even hinted at (gasp!) evolution was considered blasphemous and so were the people who brought it up. Leaving out reason acts as if only the leader/priest/pastor/teacher has understanding (and sometimes even they are not allowed to question 'the way it has always been'). Leaving reason out of the process also tends to make our faith appear out of touch with the world around us. Four centuries ago Galileo Galilei was promoting the new scientific understanding that the earth was not the center of the universe. He was 'tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.' for his ideas that were considered "false and contrary to Scripture".
Experience has either been strongly affirmed or negated, depending on your particular stream of Christianity. But usually, it is only one's own experience that counts, not someone else's. So, if I have experienced __________, I will believe it is of God and for today. And if I haven't experienced _________, I will say it is of the devil and so is anyone who says they have experienced it. You can fill in the blanks with a number of supernatural phenomena. Here again balance is in order. Experience alone can soon run amok if it is not offset with the other three. I'm sure you can think of enough recent examples to illustrate either extreme.
In balancing scripture, tradition, reason and experience I see the need for a safe place for discussion, where the student of the Bible and the cynic can both listen to each other. Where the person steeped in tradition can hear the concern of the person with different experience, and neither feels disrespected or scorned. Where the differing opinions of two students can both be laid on the table, and both are valued, and open for discussion. Where a person with little church experience can raise her questions about what the preacher is saying.
I believe it is time to make church a place where we can all be 'experts', be listened to, be valued. To all be students where no one claims to have all the answers. A place where ancient liturgy and church practice can be experienced, but willingly replaced with something contemporary. A place where the spirit of God speaks through all of us to bring us to where we need to be. Sure, my perspective on an issue may be totally out to lunch, but that is likely to become very obvious in the presence of my peers. On the other hand, the long-held traditional theology may be what needs to give way, and that probably won't happen if there isn't a safe place to argue (I mean discuss!).
Since a Sunday morning crowd of tens or hundreds or thousands of people isn't a conducive place for this kind of dialogue, I think home-sized groups are vital to keep our theology vibrant and thoughtful.
Probably every 'revelation' of new understanding came about as someone questioned the status quo. If we keep all four corners of the quadrilateral dynamic and functional, we can safely work through the questions and issues facing us today. If we climb up on our favorite corner and chose to ignore the rest, we only display our fear and insecurity about the validity of our present insight, and both we and the world at large will suffer for our arrogance.
OK, I'll get down off my soapbox now, and try to dodge the rotten tomatoes!
A recent blog by my fellow hare-brained loose cannon Peter
got me thinking. He's quite good at that!
He refers to the 'Wesleyan Quadrilateral'.
Wikipedia defines it saying that“ Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions. The four sources are:
Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ”
I believe it is time that the church returned to a place where all four are operating in balance.
This resonates with me in two ways:
--That there is great value in having all four areas involved in developing our understanding of God (theology), and
--Church should be a safe place to explore all four, a place to discuss with people who share your desire to come to a fuller understanding and practice of your understanding of God.
Scripture. My experience (fairly limited, I admit) has been that church tends to be the presentation of a singular point of view. Although it purports to be 'scriptural', that point of view is not usually open to discussion or deeper study as to whether the point being presented is a legitimate understanding of scripture, based on as full an understanding as possible of the place, culture and language of the time, and purpose of writing. It seems to me that sermons are more a monologue than a dialogue, and not much place (if any) is provided to truly study and converse together. So, although the Bible is used as a foundation for the teaching, there often is no place for people to bring tradition, reason, and experience into the conversation in a desire to better understand the full message of that scripture. Add to that the tendency of some people to say “The Bible says __________” with the not-so-subtle inference that any other interpretation is denying the authority of scripture. That alone is valid cause for making sure that tradition, reason, and experience are all part of the process of understanding what God wants us to learn and live from the Bible. For too long people have taken their particular understanding of scripture (often based as much on tradition as good exegesis) and said that any other understanding is evil, wrong, against God, or whatever other words they can use to keep the flock in line—sometimes to the detriment of a Christ-like character. (The Crusades, slavery, anti-abortion militancy, treatment of gays and other unloving actions come to mind.)
Tradition. It seems to me that many denominations are either quite open to the past 2000 years of church tradition, or quite closed to it. Tradition either figures largely in the content, government and style of a church, or very little (although even new denominations seem to have formed their own contemporary traditions). I think it is time to recognize the strength of the past, but to also be ready to move ahead. Tossing out 2000 years of wisdom and experience in favor of the last few decades can easily doom us to repeating mistakes that have already been made. We have accumulated a lot of wisdom and understanding over the past two millennia. On the other hand, speaking in a centuries-old style in today's world only serves to demonstrate to a person outside of the church that faith is outdated and out of touch with reality. A balance is necessary.
Reason. There seemed to be an era in parts of the church when reason was considered evil. Higher education was shunned, individual thought was denounced. Anything that seemed to question the 'traditional/fundamentalist' view of scripture was immediately branded as diabolic and tossed out, even if there may well have been a need for some new insight. For example, any discussion on the Genesis creation account that didn't include six literal days, or a 6000 year-old earth, or even hinted at (gasp!) evolution was considered blasphemous and so were the people who brought it up. Leaving out reason acts as if only the leader/priest/pastor/teacher has understanding (and sometimes even they are not allowed to question 'the way it has always been'). Leaving reason out of the process also tends to make our faith appear out of touch with the world around us. Four centuries ago Galileo Galilei was promoting the new scientific understanding that the earth was not the center of the universe. He was 'tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.' for his ideas that were considered "false and contrary to Scripture".
Experience has either been strongly affirmed or negated, depending on your particular stream of Christianity. But usually, it is only one's own experience that counts, not someone else's. So, if I have experienced __________, I will believe it is of God and for today. And if I haven't experienced _________, I will say it is of the devil and so is anyone who says they have experienced it. You can fill in the blanks with a number of supernatural phenomena. Here again balance is in order. Experience alone can soon run amok if it is not offset with the other three. I'm sure you can think of enough recent examples to illustrate either extreme.
In balancing scripture, tradition, reason and experience I see the need for a safe place for discussion, where the student of the Bible and the cynic can both listen to each other. Where the person steeped in tradition can hear the concern of the person with different experience, and neither feels disrespected or scorned. Where the differing opinions of two students can both be laid on the table, and both are valued, and open for discussion. Where a person with little church experience can raise her questions about what the preacher is saying.
I believe it is time to make church a place where we can all be 'experts', be listened to, be valued. To all be students where no one claims to have all the answers. A place where ancient liturgy and church practice can be experienced, but willingly replaced with something contemporary. A place where the spirit of God speaks through all of us to bring us to where we need to be. Sure, my perspective on an issue may be totally out to lunch, but that is likely to become very obvious in the presence of my peers. On the other hand, the long-held traditional theology may be what needs to give way, and that probably won't happen if there isn't a safe place to argue (I mean discuss!).
Since a Sunday morning crowd of tens or hundreds or thousands of people isn't a conducive place for this kind of dialogue, I think home-sized groups are vital to keep our theology vibrant and thoughtful.
Probably every 'revelation' of new understanding came about as someone questioned the status quo. If we keep all four corners of the quadrilateral dynamic and functional, we can safely work through the questions and issues facing us today. If we climb up on our favorite corner and chose to ignore the rest, we only display our fear and insecurity about the validity of our present insight, and both we and the world at large will suffer for our arrogance.
OK, I'll get down off my soapbox now, and try to dodge the rotten tomatoes!
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Messing with your theology
I bet this is going to mess with your theology. It has with mine for awhile now.
I was out 'strolling' a few nights ago, wandering around downtown Victoria. It was hot (for Victoria), and people were just sort of moseying along.
I happened upon a couple of people I know fairly well. She is usually out panhandling, stretching her income as best she can. He lives on the street, pushes his grocery cart around, scrounging for whatever he can find. They are both in their 40's, I would suppose.
He commented that they hadn't been able to find any food in the dumpsters today, nobody was throwing out anything. They had seen lots of people going by, carrying their take-out food, but no one had offered them any.
Meanwhile, it is still two days to 'payday' (Welfare day).
As we were chatting, along comes 3 young guys, one of whom I have chatted with a number of times. I really didn't know his two friends.
The guy I know says “Hi”, and asked how things were going. Then he said they had some food for my street friends—a fresh, 12 inch Subway sub.
Of course, the recipients were happy.
Now we get into the sticky stuff.
As I said, I have had many conversations with the one young guy who brought the food. He knows I am a Christian, involved with CARTS, a weekly food and clothing ministry to the homeless. He has often shared how good it is that people are offering assistance to people on the street.
All in all, what happened was a very Christ-like thing. These guys, sharing their food with someone in need. Offering it gladly, not having to be asked. It's what Jesus would do (WWJD).
Living up to Jesus statement:
John 13:35 This is how everyone will recognize that you are my disciples--when they see the love you have for each other.
The sticky part? This guy is a Muslim.
Living like a Christian is expected to live.
Not confessing to be a follower of Christ.
But living like it.
Luke 6:43, 44 No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit.
I continue to see some people who say they have nothing to do with Jesus (perhaps trying to keep clear of those who call themselves 'Christian', but don't live up to it), but putting many of us to shame by their commitment to love the 'least of these'.
That's why my theology is getting kinda messed up.
And I think it might be a good thing. Our theology probably needs to be shaken up regularly, or else it will go rotten.
I was out 'strolling' a few nights ago, wandering around downtown Victoria. It was hot (for Victoria), and people were just sort of moseying along.
I happened upon a couple of people I know fairly well. She is usually out panhandling, stretching her income as best she can. He lives on the street, pushes his grocery cart around, scrounging for whatever he can find. They are both in their 40's, I would suppose.
He commented that they hadn't been able to find any food in the dumpsters today, nobody was throwing out anything. They had seen lots of people going by, carrying their take-out food, but no one had offered them any.
Meanwhile, it is still two days to 'payday' (Welfare day).
As we were chatting, along comes 3 young guys, one of whom I have chatted with a number of times. I really didn't know his two friends.
The guy I know says “Hi”, and asked how things were going. Then he said they had some food for my street friends—a fresh, 12 inch Subway sub.
Of course, the recipients were happy.
Now we get into the sticky stuff.
As I said, I have had many conversations with the one young guy who brought the food. He knows I am a Christian, involved with CARTS, a weekly food and clothing ministry to the homeless. He has often shared how good it is that people are offering assistance to people on the street.
All in all, what happened was a very Christ-like thing. These guys, sharing their food with someone in need. Offering it gladly, not having to be asked. It's what Jesus would do (WWJD).
Living up to Jesus statement:
John 13:35 This is how everyone will recognize that you are my disciples--when they see the love you have for each other.
The sticky part? This guy is a Muslim.
Living like a Christian is expected to live.
Not confessing to be a follower of Christ.
But living like it.
Luke 6:43, 44 No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit.
I continue to see some people who say they have nothing to do with Jesus (perhaps trying to keep clear of those who call themselves 'Christian', but don't live up to it), but putting many of us to shame by their commitment to love the 'least of these'.
That's why my theology is getting kinda messed up.
And I think it might be a good thing. Our theology probably needs to be shaken up regularly, or else it will go rotten.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Iced theology
I stopped by one of my two favorite java joints (Beans & Greens—Peggy sells coffee and plants) today for an iced latte and a cup of ginger pea soup. As I ordered, I made some forgettable wisecrack about feeling guilty, and she said something along the lines of “It's OK, there is no shame here at Beans & Greens”. I couldn't help but respond--“I need to put that up as a sign at church.”
Then, after I had completely enjoyed both the latte and the soup, Peggy told me that there are things that are both good and good for you—that things can be pleasurable as well as healthy. The two do not need to be mutually exclusive.
Again I thought—that would be a good thing to hang up at church.
Two awesome bits of theology, wrapped around a frosty iced latte:
--Jesus didn't come to bring shame, reproach, or condemnation. (Romans 8:1)
--Everything God created is good, and to be received with thanks. Nothing is to be sneered at and thrown out. (1 Timothy 4:4)
Then, after I had completely enjoyed both the latte and the soup, Peggy told me that there are things that are both good and good for you—that things can be pleasurable as well as healthy. The two do not need to be mutually exclusive.
Again I thought—that would be a good thing to hang up at church.
Two awesome bits of theology, wrapped around a frosty iced latte:
--Jesus didn't come to bring shame, reproach, or condemnation. (Romans 8:1)
--Everything God created is good, and to be received with thanks. Nothing is to be sneered at and thrown out. (1 Timothy 4:4)
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Strength in diversity
I used to think the best-case scenario would be if everyone had the same values, theology, lifestyle. “Diversity is bad, uniformity is good.” It fits with the idea that there is an ultimate truth, an ultimate understanding of all things, and the whole idea is to reach that wonderful place when you know it all. (Of course, there are those among us who sound like they have reached this point of enlightenment already, and they are only too happy to help us join them.)
More recently I have been coming to the conclusion that in many areas of life, there is more than one way to look at things. Different points of view are equally defensible. “Diversity is OK, uniformity isn't as good as I thought it was.”
Now, even that conclusion is facing some opposition. I am beginning to consider that diversity brings strength. “Diversity is ideal, uniformity is limiting.”
Visualize an underwater communication cable—the kind of technology that first brought telephone communication between continents. Its main purpose is to transmit a large number of different telephone calls over large distances. At first glance, you might think that bunching a large number of bare copper wires together would accomplish this task. But it won't. The interconnecting wires would combine the various calls into one jumbled mess.
No, each wire needs to be insulated from each other wire.
But it doesn't stop there. An underwater cable needs overall waterproofing as well. It needs to have a tough enough outside layer to keep all moisture out.
The ocean floor can be a rough place, so the outer layer needs to also protect from the effect of sharp rocks.
This cable is laid on the ocean floor, often at quite a distance from the surface—so it needs extra strength in order to handle its own weight as it is spooled out.
So, the overall success of this cable depends on the diversity of the components. Some need to conduct electricity well, others need to not conduct electricity at all. “Diversity is ideal, uniformity is limiting.”
Here's another word picture: a piece of hard clear crystalline substance with many facets to refract light is called a diamond. A piece of hard clear substance with one facet is called a pane of glass. It takes the variety of facets to begin to display the beauty within the stone. “Diversity is ideal, uniformity is limiting.”
I expect you are wise enough to see the parallels. The kingdom of God is stronger because of its diversity, not weaker.
And I am not just thinking of the gifts and abilities we have individually.
I am also thinking of the diversity within the traditions and denominations we see within the Church.
--the longevity, history, and artistic beauty of the Roman Catholic church.
--the tranquility and liturgical framework of the Anglican church.
--the joy, immediacy, and power of Charismatics.
--the centrality of the Bible, of Jesus, or of social justice of various groups.
--the compassion and inclusiveness of liberals.
--the passion for a personal connection with God of the conservatives.
Every 'flavor' has its unique value, and adds to the overall strength of the whole. Each also has potential areas of weakness, and no one can stand alone.
I am beginning to see the value of Brian McLaren's “A generous orthodoxy: Why I am a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian.”
I used to think that progressive reformations/spin offs/splits were God's way of helping us get closer and closer to the 'real' church He wanted. Now I am trying to see that no one group can fully express the breadth and depth of the kingdom. It takes all of us (and even more) to even begin to demonstrate the fulness of Christ's character.
I suppose the challenge to me is to discover my strength and purpose, which particular facets God wants to reflect Himself through in me, and not try to become a “jack-of-all-trades” kind of Christian.
My purpose here isn't to encourage you to be everything, but to value the combined strength we have because of the diversity we each contribute.
More recently I have been coming to the conclusion that in many areas of life, there is more than one way to look at things. Different points of view are equally defensible. “Diversity is OK, uniformity isn't as good as I thought it was.”
Now, even that conclusion is facing some opposition. I am beginning to consider that diversity brings strength. “Diversity is ideal, uniformity is limiting.”
Visualize an underwater communication cable—the kind of technology that first brought telephone communication between continents. Its main purpose is to transmit a large number of different telephone calls over large distances. At first glance, you might think that bunching a large number of bare copper wires together would accomplish this task. But it won't. The interconnecting wires would combine the various calls into one jumbled mess.
No, each wire needs to be insulated from each other wire.
But it doesn't stop there. An underwater cable needs overall waterproofing as well. It needs to have a tough enough outside layer to keep all moisture out.
The ocean floor can be a rough place, so the outer layer needs to also protect from the effect of sharp rocks.
This cable is laid on the ocean floor, often at quite a distance from the surface—so it needs extra strength in order to handle its own weight as it is spooled out.
So, the overall success of this cable depends on the diversity of the components. Some need to conduct electricity well, others need to not conduct electricity at all. “Diversity is ideal, uniformity is limiting.”
Here's another word picture: a piece of hard clear crystalline substance with many facets to refract light is called a diamond. A piece of hard clear substance with one facet is called a pane of glass. It takes the variety of facets to begin to display the beauty within the stone. “Diversity is ideal, uniformity is limiting.”
I expect you are wise enough to see the parallels. The kingdom of God is stronger because of its diversity, not weaker.
And I am not just thinking of the gifts and abilities we have individually.
I am also thinking of the diversity within the traditions and denominations we see within the Church.
--the longevity, history, and artistic beauty of the Roman Catholic church.
--the tranquility and liturgical framework of the Anglican church.
--the joy, immediacy, and power of Charismatics.
--the centrality of the Bible, of Jesus, or of social justice of various groups.
--the compassion and inclusiveness of liberals.
--the passion for a personal connection with God of the conservatives.
Every 'flavor' has its unique value, and adds to the overall strength of the whole. Each also has potential areas of weakness, and no one can stand alone.
I am beginning to see the value of Brian McLaren's “A generous orthodoxy: Why I am a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian.”
I used to think that progressive reformations/spin offs/splits were God's way of helping us get closer and closer to the 'real' church He wanted. Now I am trying to see that no one group can fully express the breadth and depth of the kingdom. It takes all of us (and even more) to even begin to demonstrate the fulness of Christ's character.
I suppose the challenge to me is to discover my strength and purpose, which particular facets God wants to reflect Himself through in me, and not try to become a “jack-of-all-trades” kind of Christian.
My purpose here isn't to encourage you to be everything, but to value the combined strength we have because of the diversity we each contribute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
