Tuesday, December 07, 2010
How About When They Do It Wrong?
Scot McKnight writes about:
There is no much that we do "get" that just is not evident on what we do. I personally would like to do well what we do "get" before I worry about the stuff we do not.
I know we are renewed by the "transforming of the mind," but I also know sometimes things work in reverse - and sometimes we just have to have the discipline to persevere when our minds will never be renewed. Bill W says you are always an alcoholic, you can just be a sober one. I know from my personal experience, I will always be a morbidly obese person, but I can chose - today - not to eat too much. In point of fact - it is that knowledge that is most important in dealing with my weight.
We are all sinners, and I think we all need to "get" that. Let's start there.
When Christians Get it WrongAs he, and the gentleman he is discussion points out, Christians often get it wrong:
Sometimes Christians are plain and simply UnChristian, as in insensitive, critical, judgmental and mean-spirited.Good thoughts all, but the question that is the title of this post ran through my mind almost instantly. I think we need to be more aware of what we do than what we "get."
[...]
Sometimes Christians get it wrong on science and politics.
[...]
Sometimes Christians get it wrong when speaking of other religions: he sketches strong exclusivism, universalism and inclusivism.
There is no much that we do "get" that just is not evident on what we do. I personally would like to do well what we do "get" before I worry about the stuff we do not.
I know we are renewed by the "transforming of the mind," but I also know sometimes things work in reverse - and sometimes we just have to have the discipline to persevere when our minds will never be renewed. Bill W says you are always an alcoholic, you can just be a sober one. I know from my personal experience, I will always be a morbidly obese person, but I can chose - today - not to eat too much. In point of fact - it is that knowledge that is most important in dealing with my weight.
We are all sinners, and I think we all need to "get" that. Let's start there.
Technorati Tags:sin, knowledge, transformation
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Kitty Kartoons
Monday, December 06, 2010
The Necessity of Sacrament
Mark Daniels wrote about how we "grow up" in the Christian faith:
One of my least favorite things about the so-called "contemporary" worship practices is how the sacramental is reduced to the ordinary. Whether we hold the two sacraments of most modern protestants or the seven of Catholicism, there needs to be some place that is extraordinary - some place where my will, being and pleasure is secondary.
As Mark rightly points out, the sacraments are about God working in us, not us doing something for God. That's going to be uncomfortable - it has to be or else I have a hard time believing that we are letting God do His work. It is not comfortable to go to the doctor - it is certainly not comfortable to have surgery - being "fixed" hurts in some sense.
When we wrk to make the sacramental "accessible" we make that which is about God about us - big mistake.
"How do we grow beyond being just spiritual babes?" is a question asked in this wonderful piece from Our Daily Bread.Amen and Amen!
The answer given by Bill Crowder, the piece's author, is to regularly meditate on God's Word and to devote ourselves to prayer.
I would add one more element to that answer, something which is indispensable to the growth of our relationship with Christ and which is pure gift. It's regularly receiving the body and blood of Jesus in Holy Communion.
In Holy Communion, Christ both bodily and spiritually imparts Himself to us and in God's mysterious way, works within us, making us over into His image.
One of my least favorite things about the so-called "contemporary" worship practices is how the sacramental is reduced to the ordinary. Whether we hold the two sacraments of most modern protestants or the seven of Catholicism, there needs to be some place that is extraordinary - some place where my will, being and pleasure is secondary.
As Mark rightly points out, the sacraments are about God working in us, not us doing something for God. That's going to be uncomfortable - it has to be or else I have a hard time believing that we are letting God do His work. It is not comfortable to go to the doctor - it is certainly not comfortable to have surgery - being "fixed" hurts in some sense.
When we wrk to make the sacramental "accessible" we make that which is about God about us - big mistake.
Technorati Tags:sacrament, tranformation
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Comic Art
HEROES AND ARTISTS - ARTIST THOMAS SCIOLI
Technorati Tags:comics.comic books, comic art, heroes and artists
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Friday, December 03, 2010
Silly?
Joe Carter at First Thoughts posted twice a while back, in two posts on calculating the probability of the existence of God. Reasonable work - but in the end I think it is silly.
I was recently in a discussion with some Roman Catholic friends that wanted to know if I thought the Shroud of Turin was "the real deal." My response was "we'll never know" - and I like it that way.
The "assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" lies at the very heart of who we are as Christians. Without it, we are in a very real sense no different than a secularist.
Sometimes as Christians we focus on salvation and works that we forget some of the genuine underlying things about being Christian. One of them is a belief in and contact with the supernatural. By definition the supernatural is beyond our science, mathematics and even our logic.
When we attempt to reduce faith in God into something that we can encounter on our own terms, as opposed to His, we reduce Christianity itself. It becomes in some sense our religion when in fact it should be us becoming God's people.
I believe a large part of the Christian walk to be a walk towards transcendence. We should be moving away from that which grounds us in the here and now and towards an eternal perspective. For only by gaining such an eternal perspective can we effectively be transformed in the here and now.
I have always thought that the best way to reach those with "logical" objections to belief in God is to change the subject. Somewhere in them is a piece of the transcendent God. It is to that which we must appeal.
I was recently in a discussion with some Roman Catholic friends that wanted to know if I thought the Shroud of Turin was "the real deal." My response was "we'll never know" - and I like it that way.
The "assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" lies at the very heart of who we are as Christians. Without it, we are in a very real sense no different than a secularist.
Sometimes as Christians we focus on salvation and works that we forget some of the genuine underlying things about being Christian. One of them is a belief in and contact with the supernatural. By definition the supernatural is beyond our science, mathematics and even our logic.
When we attempt to reduce faith in God into something that we can encounter on our own terms, as opposed to His, we reduce Christianity itself. It becomes in some sense our religion when in fact it should be us becoming God's people.
I believe a large part of the Christian walk to be a walk towards transcendence. We should be moving away from that which grounds us in the here and now and towards an eternal perspective. For only by gaining such an eternal perspective can we effectively be transformed in the here and now.
I have always thought that the best way to reach those with "logical" objections to belief in God is to change the subject. Somewhere in them is a piece of the transcendent God. It is to that which we must appeal.
Technorati Tags:apologetics, mathematics, transcendence
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Friday Humor
Technorati Tags:joke, humor, fridayhumor, droopy, tex avery
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Thursday, December 02, 2010
It's Time We Asked Ourselves...
...Why This Always Happens.
By way of disclaimer - I am as guilty of this as every one else and have participated in group blogs and done the same thing - I dno not single out the group I linked to here - it is just an example.
It just seems like every time a bunch of evangelicals get together to do something like a blog (conferences...missions...politics)it:
- never really gets off the ground because all we do is talk
- It "burns out" relatively quickly
- It falls apart amidst scandal in the leadership
- it breaks down into infighting and the wider audience just goes away.
I know not every time (so don't bother commenting with counter examples) but it does happen with some frequency. There must be an underlying reason?
Well, I am going to offer my answer to that question - it may not hold true for historical evangelicalism, and it may not hold true for evangelical theology, but it certainly ho9lds true for evangelicalism as a movement.
We're selfish.
That's it, that's all. We are interested in our expression of Christ. we are so busy with our ministry that we do not have time to devote to other ministry. We want the press for ourselves. We want the ministry affiliated with our organization. I could go on, but I won't - you get the idea.
Paul said:
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!I wonder what a group blog written by people with such an attitude would look like?
By way of disclaimer - I am as guilty of this as every one else and have participated in group blogs and done the same thing - I dno not single out the group I linked to here - it is just an example.
Technorati Tags:selfishness, evangelicalism
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Illuminated Scripture
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
The Balance of Leadership
MMI comments on a NYTimes op-ed. The op-ed is typical whining pastor syndrome - been there, done that. Let's look at Tod's comment:
Leadership is funny stuff - the best leader generally cannot take people where they do not want to go. Hence most military leaders are much more happy with an all volunteer force - everybody in the military wants to be there and will therefore do well. Hence problems in public education where education is not valued. Even the best teachers can educate to only a limited extent if people do not want to be educated. And finally, hence politicians seem to be all things to all people - they have to be to get enough critical mass to get elected.
See, leadership is really about assisting people on a journey they have already started.
So back to the church, MacDonald is right in this - we now view pastors as evangelists and they are not the same thing. Paul was an evangelist - Timothy was a pastor - hence Paul traveled and after a time Timothy had to stay in Ephesus. The roles compliment each other - but they are not the same thing. Evangelists "make" Christians - pastors "build" disciples. (I use quotes around those verbs to indicate that it's really the Holy Spirit and the individual that do that work, the evangelist or pastor is just an aid.)
We need both. The trend seems to be to have a central evangelist (the preacher) and many pastors (the congregation functioning in small groups, etc.) Traditionally there were many evangelists (the congregation bringing friends to church) and one pastor. I am unsure why we changed models - becasue to paraphrase Chesterton - I don't think it failed, I just don't think it was ever well executed.
The problem with the new model is it breeds immaturity in leadership and thus robs us of any leadership towards discipleship.
MacDonald then goes on to describe what he considers 'consumer-driven religion' as something that has completely rewritten the job description of many pastors. He says: "They’re no longer expected to offer moral counsel in pastoral care sessions or to deliver sermons that make the comfortable uneasy. Church leaders who continue such ministerial traditions pay dearly."I think both MacDonald and Rhoades are right. Pastors switched "audiences" and the audience they switched to is demanding - that demand is not often expressed directly, but is rather expressed by how full the pews and plate are.
I clearly don't run in the United Church of Christ circles, abut I find MacDonald's assessment of the 'consumer-driven' church to be a little off-base.
If anything, I don't find these trends to be 'consumer-driven' but rather 'pastor-driven'.
Starting back with the old Willow "seeker sensitive' style of worship service, emphasis shifted to make the worship experience more palatable, not necessarily for the believer, but for the unbeliever. Music, message topics... literally everything was turned upside down in order to reach a target audience. Some still argue that that in the rush to be more relevant, the gospel was watered down. Of course, Willow has since changed its strategy because of a number of reasons. (and we could debate the whole SS movement all day long). But my point: this wasn't consumer driven. It was pastor-driven.
In fact, many of the church's that I have the opportunity to work with that are really kickin' it are FAR from consumer driven. They are staff and lead pastor driven. Services are crafted, not by what Jill or Jane in the pew wants to hear; but rather by what the leadership feels will make the greatest impact on their lives; and what will communicate the gospel in the most powerful and dramatic way.
Leadership is funny stuff - the best leader generally cannot take people where they do not want to go. Hence most military leaders are much more happy with an all volunteer force - everybody in the military wants to be there and will therefore do well. Hence problems in public education where education is not valued. Even the best teachers can educate to only a limited extent if people do not want to be educated. And finally, hence politicians seem to be all things to all people - they have to be to get enough critical mass to get elected.
See, leadership is really about assisting people on a journey they have already started.
So back to the church, MacDonald is right in this - we now view pastors as evangelists and they are not the same thing. Paul was an evangelist - Timothy was a pastor - hence Paul traveled and after a time Timothy had to stay in Ephesus. The roles compliment each other - but they are not the same thing. Evangelists "make" Christians - pastors "build" disciples. (I use quotes around those verbs to indicate that it's really the Holy Spirit and the individual that do that work, the evangelist or pastor is just an aid.)
We need both. The trend seems to be to have a central evangelist (the preacher) and many pastors (the congregation functioning in small groups, etc.) Traditionally there were many evangelists (the congregation bringing friends to church) and one pastor. I am unsure why we changed models - becasue to paraphrase Chesterton - I don't think it failed, I just don't think it was ever well executed.
The problem with the new model is it breeds immaturity in leadership and thus robs us of any leadership towards discipleship.
Technorati Tags:church, leadership
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
