Thursday, October 07, 2010
It Shows
Mark Roberts:
I really hate the artificial divide that so many of us keep in our lives between the intellectual and the actual. We live in an information age. Even the seemingly uninformed among us know far more than the best educated of our predecessors. And yet, taken as a whole, we are largely the same people we were then. Has knowledge truly changed us? Is this information age really a better age?
Anyone that would answer "yes" must live in an ivory tower somewhere - sin still runs rampant.
But then we have those that seem to seek the power of God without the balance of the intellect - they too end up as sinful as the rest of us - and I am never really sure of the source of the power they exhibit.
There is a balance, an we must deliberately seek it.
After I graduated college and entered the working world, I found myself in a large company and I also found myself head and shoulders above my peers in job performance. My education had permitted me a great deal of lab time. They having gone to larger educational institutions had had their lab time severely controlled and limited. I could step into the lab and get busy - they had to make mistakes and learn form those mistakes = practical lessons I had learned in the lab at school.
We need labs in the church - and too often small groups don't cut it. We have to get out there and make a difference, or fail to make a difference and learn the lesson of failure.
Think about it.
So it is today. We who follow Jesus are to be his witnesses, telling others what he has done for us. Yet this message will not be persuasive unless it is backed up by evidence of God’s power. If people see God at work in and through us, if they sense his presence in our compassion, our prayers, and our communities of faith, then they will be open to hear what we have to say about Jesus.What's more, I am not at all sure that we live abundantly without God's power being apparent in our lives.
I really hate the artificial divide that so many of us keep in our lives between the intellectual and the actual. We live in an information age. Even the seemingly uninformed among us know far more than the best educated of our predecessors. And yet, taken as a whole, we are largely the same people we were then. Has knowledge truly changed us? Is this information age really a better age?
Anyone that would answer "yes" must live in an ivory tower somewhere - sin still runs rampant.
But then we have those that seem to seek the power of God without the balance of the intellect - they too end up as sinful as the rest of us - and I am never really sure of the source of the power they exhibit.
There is a balance, an we must deliberately seek it.
After I graduated college and entered the working world, I found myself in a large company and I also found myself head and shoulders above my peers in job performance. My education had permitted me a great deal of lab time. They having gone to larger educational institutions had had their lab time severely controlled and limited. I could step into the lab and get busy - they had to make mistakes and learn form those mistakes = practical lessons I had learned in the lab at school.
We need labs in the church - and too often small groups don't cut it. We have to get out there and make a difference, or fail to make a difference and learn the lesson of failure.
Think about it.
Technorati Tags:lab, failure, power
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Illuminated Scripture
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Finding Your "Ministry"
Milt Stanley quotes Bob Spencer:
The church exists to build people - good people, people that are demonstrably different than other people doing the same thing. And those people are the church, regardless of institutional affiliation or activity.
The institution exists to serve God and God's people. The people do not exist to serve the institution. The institution is means, the people are the end.
Who do you serve?
This is just the kind of nonsense that raises the biggest red flag for me. Church leaders create all these programs and "ministry opportunities" and then try to plug everybody into them, suggesting that if you're not so plugged you must be passive, etc. Can I just mention that being a Mom and Dad might be a more fruitful and important place to minister than any of the church's "ministry opportunities"? Things that won't last, indeed.That's blunt - and right!
The church exists to build people - good people, people that are demonstrably different than other people doing the same thing. And those people are the church, regardless of institutional affiliation or activity.
The institution exists to serve God and God's people. The people do not exist to serve the institution. The institution is means, the people are the end.
Who do you serve?
Technorati Tags:service, institutions
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Art as Evangelism
First Thoughts, Joe Carter quotes Aaron Rosen on art speaking to non-believers:
What;s more, these paragraphs seem to resume that we can only encounter God on a cognitive level. Frankly, if that is what we believe then we have already lost the big battle. God is supernatural and therefore on some levels beyond cognition. When we reduce existence to merely cognitive, we have bought into the modernist, if not post-modernist, view.
Art, if we allow it, bursts through our cognition and touches us on deeper levels. Levels that are often frankly, beyond our control. And that in the end is, I think the point.
The trite but truthful phrase "let go and let God" is about more than events. It's about thinking. Sometimes we have to quit thinking about God and just experience Him. Sometimes art can help us do that, and if it can help us, it can do the same for the non-believer becasue it is not about thought, its about experience.
Is this mystical - you bet. I am no Theresa of Avila though. Mysticism must be balanced with thought, but so must thought be balanced with mysticism. Mysticism is, by the way, different than emotion. That, frankly is where I worry about modern worship music - it's emotional but not evocative on deeper levels.
We are afraid of being evoked on those deeper levels - we can't control them. But God can, does, and it is good.
For the non-believer, perhaps focusing on this “poetical teaching” can offer a way of engaging with religious art in a manner beyond merely cultural or aesthetic appreciation; one which begins to dance, albeit gingerly, along the perimeters of the theological. What we experience in religious art, ultimately, doesn’t have to lead us into heaven. In Botticini’s “Assumption”, the disciples gather around Mary’s tomb, only to discover an assortment of lilies has taken the place where her body should rest. Uncomprehending, they look around in bewilderment. If looking at religious art can leave us similarly stunned, perhaps for some that’s more than miracle enough.Sometimes we get in our own way by over-thinking stuff way, way too much. I think everyone agrees that God is revealed in His creation, and in creating ourselves, we reveal some of God in us - and thus God speaks to those that see the creation. Whether it is art, or a machine, when we make something that has never been made before, God is revealed - to believer and unbeliever alike. That is even true, though to a lesser extent, in the "intended to offend man and God" trash that passes for art in some circles today. The revulsion that we feel towards such things reveals the bit of God's image that remains alive in us.
What;s more, these paragraphs seem to resume that we can only encounter God on a cognitive level. Frankly, if that is what we believe then we have already lost the big battle. God is supernatural and therefore on some levels beyond cognition. When we reduce existence to merely cognitive, we have bought into the modernist, if not post-modernist, view.
Art, if we allow it, bursts through our cognition and touches us on deeper levels. Levels that are often frankly, beyond our control. And that in the end is, I think the point.
The trite but truthful phrase "let go and let God" is about more than events. It's about thinking. Sometimes we have to quit thinking about God and just experience Him. Sometimes art can help us do that, and if it can help us, it can do the same for the non-believer becasue it is not about thought, its about experience.
Is this mystical - you bet. I am no Theresa of Avila though. Mysticism must be balanced with thought, but so must thought be balanced with mysticism. Mysticism is, by the way, different than emotion. That, frankly is where I worry about modern worship music - it's emotional but not evocative on deeper levels.
We are afraid of being evoked on those deeper levels - we can't control them. But God can, does, and it is good.
Technorati Tags:art, evangelism, mysticism
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Kitty Kartoons
Monday, October 04, 2010
It's All About Context
Mark Daniels starts with a Chesterton quote and then expands:
The first point is in the phrase "opt for love and truth." Love DEMANDS that truth be spoken. There is no love in watching someone destroy themselves. Love DEMANDS that we at least make sure people know they are making bad choices. It is inherently unloving to sit by and watch people make mistakes. But love also demands that we do so in a fashion that bespeaks of kindness and gentleness. Illuminating truth and condemnation are two very different things.
In many ways it is not about the truth, but in how we use the truth. It is also important to note that people who behave contrary to truth are often very sensitized to its declaration. They will often cry intolerance at an provocation becasue they recognize the essential truth of what is being declared and it runs afoul of their perceived desires. We are not accountable to those to whom we speak truth as to how we speak it, but we are accountable to Christ, and the how matters as much as the what.
The second point is in the noun "destructive consequences." We are often tempted to define sin by deific declaration. That is to say, "It's sin becasue God said it was." But we do not worship a caprious God. That which is sin is sin because it indeed has destructive consequences - consequences that we should be able to describe and demonstrate without resorting to a purely prophetic voice.
Which brings me back to the "how's" of declaring the truth. Reason matters more than condemnation. Again, the truth is condemning of itself. We do not need to provide the condemnation, only the truth - and reasonably so.
These days, we--Christians and non-Christians in the West--have elevated "tolerance" to the highest human virtue. So much so, in fact, that a member of one of my former parishes told me once that, so far as he could tell, the gospel message was, "Live and let live." I wondered what Bible he had been reading.I really like the way Mark puts that and there are two very important points he makes that deserve amplification.
Christians should have no desire--any more than Jesus Himself did--to coerce people into repentance for sin or faith in Christ, of course....
[...]
If a child has the notion that sticking her or his finger into an electrical outlet would be fun, the last thing a responsible parent would do is tolerate this impulse. The parent would do everything conceivable to prevent the child from harming himself or herself. Love and truth would trump parental tolerance.
Just so, the Church has a God-given responsibility to militate against a lazy, indifferent tolerance, to instead, opt for love and truth in warning people who ask us for an account for the hope that is in us through Christ, to make them aware of the destructive consequences of flouting God's will, whether it's expressed in materialism, injustice, egotism, lovelessness, covetousness, or sex outside of marriage.
The first point is in the phrase "opt for love and truth." Love DEMANDS that truth be spoken. There is no love in watching someone destroy themselves. Love DEMANDS that we at least make sure people know they are making bad choices. It is inherently unloving to sit by and watch people make mistakes. But love also demands that we do so in a fashion that bespeaks of kindness and gentleness. Illuminating truth and condemnation are two very different things.
In many ways it is not about the truth, but in how we use the truth. It is also important to note that people who behave contrary to truth are often very sensitized to its declaration. They will often cry intolerance at an provocation becasue they recognize the essential truth of what is being declared and it runs afoul of their perceived desires. We are not accountable to those to whom we speak truth as to how we speak it, but we are accountable to Christ, and the how matters as much as the what.
The second point is in the noun "destructive consequences." We are often tempted to define sin by deific declaration. That is to say, "It's sin becasue God said it was." But we do not worship a caprious God. That which is sin is sin because it indeed has destructive consequences - consequences that we should be able to describe and demonstrate without resorting to a purely prophetic voice.
Which brings me back to the "how's" of declaring the truth. Reason matters more than condemnation. Again, the truth is condemning of itself. We do not need to provide the condemnation, only the truth - and reasonably so.
Technorati Tags:truth, sin, consequences
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Comic Art
SO BAD, THEY"RE GOOD - KLAW
I have been writing this series on bad guys for a while now and why this one has not come up yet, is to me shame. In the good old days "Klaw" was the omni present Marvel baddie, and deservedly so. He is, after all, made of "solidified sound." Yeah, I know, it defies every known law of physics - I knew that when I first encountered him as a kid, but it was one of those ideas that I spent way too much time trying to figure out how to make it happen. Nobel prize here I come.
Klaw has fallen into disfavor as a villain. I have no idea why. Oh sure, the idea of solidified sound is preposterous, but then so is the rest of comics. And he had such a classic Kirby look about him. And of course, who knew that when you were turned into sound, you lost your nose, but still, this guy just looks bad.
Klaw has never really challenged the bigs - he got relegated primarily to the Black Panther as a foil and working with teams. I just don't get it. That look needs to be reinvented and he needs to come our strong and solo against Wolverine - or the whole doggone Avengers. Heck, if he is smart enough to solidify sound he should be the mastermind behind a Marvel Universal challenge as he tries to rob power from, oh I don't know - Galactus. This guy is just too good to waste
I have been writing this series on bad guys for a while now and why this one has not come up yet, is to me shame. In the good old days "Klaw" was the omni present Marvel baddie, and deservedly so. He is, after all, made of "solidified sound." Yeah, I know, it defies every known law of physics - I knew that when I first encountered him as a kid, but it was one of those ideas that I spent way too much time trying to figure out how to make it happen. Nobel prize here I come.
Klaw has fallen into disfavor as a villain. I have no idea why. Oh sure, the idea of solidified sound is preposterous, but then so is the rest of comics. And he had such a classic Kirby look about him. And of course, who knew that when you were turned into sound, you lost your nose, but still, this guy just looks bad.Klaw has never really challenged the bigs - he got relegated primarily to the Black Panther as a foil and working with teams. I just don't get it. That look needs to be reinvented and he needs to come our strong and solo against Wolverine - or the whole doggone Avengers. Heck, if he is smart enough to solidify sound he should be the mastermind behind a Marvel Universal challenge as he tries to rob power from, oh I don't know - Galactus. This guy is just too good to waste
Technorati Tags:comics, comic books, comic art, villains, klaw
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Friday, October 01, 2010
Why I Have A Hard Time Trusting Pentecostalism...
...and yet, I am going to write about Episcopalians (sort of), the only group of people more frozen than we "frozen chosen Presbyterians. MMI quotes a pastoral letter to the Anglican communion:
There is no question in my mind that the Holy Spirit reveals himself directly and miraculously to some people. But there is also no question in my mind that the character of God does not change. God is not capricious nor flighty. He is Almighty, unchanging, slow to act, and steadfast.
Unlimited understandings of the Pentecost experience, like that claimed by the writer of this letter, lead, as it does in this case, to claiming Holy Spirit authority for just about any personal whim.
I cannot put it any more plainly than - such is wrong. When the Holy Spirit does act it will be en masse and it will be verifiable by reason and scripture. Declarations of this type are anathema - they are dangerous and they are to be denounced.
You want homosexuals ordained, please argue for it - exegete it - make your case with perseverance and vigor, but don't you dare claim direct revelation unless the Red Sea is clearly parted at your back.
The recent statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury about the struggles within the Anglican Communion seems to equate Pentecost with a single understanding of gospel realities. Those who received the gift of the Spirit on that day all heard good news. The crowd reported, “in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power” (Acts 2:11).Hence heresies, fractiousness and just plain old sin have abounded throughout church history. Joseph Smith thought the Holy Spirit led him to some golden tablets. Jim Jones thought the Holy Spirit told him lead a mass suicide - and likely homicide in some instances. David Koresh, much the same story as Jones. In light of those stories, ordaining gays seems like pretty paltry stuff, and yet....
The Spirit does seem to be saying to many within The Episcopal Church that gay and lesbian persons are God’s good creation, that an aspect of good creation is the possibility of lifelong, faithful partnership, and that such persons may indeed be good and healthy exemplars of gifted leadership within the Church, as baptized leaders and ordained ones.
There is no question in my mind that the Holy Spirit reveals himself directly and miraculously to some people. But there is also no question in my mind that the character of God does not change. God is not capricious nor flighty. He is Almighty, unchanging, slow to act, and steadfast.
Unlimited understandings of the Pentecost experience, like that claimed by the writer of this letter, lead, as it does in this case, to claiming Holy Spirit authority for just about any personal whim.
I cannot put it any more plainly than - such is wrong. When the Holy Spirit does act it will be en masse and it will be verifiable by reason and scripture. Declarations of this type are anathema - they are dangerous and they are to be denounced.
You want homosexuals ordained, please argue for it - exegete it - make your case with perseverance and vigor, but don't you dare claim direct revelation unless the Red Sea is clearly parted at your back.
Technorati Tags:pentecost, danger
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Friday Humor
Technorati Tags:joke, humor, friday humor, tex avery
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
