Book Review - "Irresistible Revolution"

Last week I finished reading the book “Irresistible Revolution” by Shane Claibourne. Let me say this at the start – if you are feeling good about your walk with Christ, your place and life, and generally who you are as a person, DO NOT READ THIS BOOK. It is by far the most challenging book I have ever read. By that, I don’t mean to say it is a difficult read, but the content will call into question your current lifestyle. That is not to say it is a bad book – quite the opposite. It was refreshing and intense and I think every American Christian should read it. But I have no idea what to do with it all. I am still processing it and am hesitant to teach and preach it because I myself am not living it.

Simply put, Shane asks the question, “What would our faith look like if we actually believed and followed the words Jesus spoke?” Now most of us would say that we do this, but the fact is we do it selectively. We take the good stuff literally and relegate the tough commands to hyperbole and exaggeration. That makes living out one’s faith easier. But consider:

What would it look like to love our neighbor as ourselves?
What would it look like to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us?
What would it look like to hate our families in order to follow Jesus?
What would it look like to sell everything and give it to the poor?
What would it look like to count the cost everyday?

As far as I can see in American Christianity we hedge our bets. We get rid of the drinking, the smoking, the sleeping around, the bad words, etc., but we keep our 2-3 cars, our 4 bedroom homes, and our leisure time vehicles. We sit down in our plush couches and watch our favorite shows on our plasma TVs that have been beamed down from a satellite and recorded on our DVRs while sipping some sort of overpriced drink. And by “we”, I mean “me.”

The more I read the more I became more and more convicted. I try to be concerned about the poor and the oppressed, but as Shane puts it that is the problem. We like to satisfy our consciences by thinking about the poor and at times doing things about it like writing checks and gather up supplies. But how can we truly love others when we keep them at a safe distance? How can we improve the situation of people’s lives if we never enter into them?

But Shane envisions a world – a God-immersed and ruled world – that contains people who do take Jesus’ words seriously and do live them out. He doesn’t say anything different than others I have read that address the plight of the poor and oppressed. But what is so powerful about this book is that Shane lives it out each and every day. The book is full of his experiences – the successes, the failures, the raw life of a disciple. This is not a book about the ideal, but a book that displays what happens when those of us who call themselves “Christians” begin acting like it and become “ordinary radicals” who initiate a revolution that cannot be stopped and will not be because it is so compelling that people can’t help but be caught up in it.

To find out more about what Shane is doing, check out http://thesimpleway.org/index2.html

Beatitude Check part 1

I memorized the Beatitudes when I was still in grade school. I had no idea what they meant, but I knew they said. As I grew through jr. high and high school, the idea that this text was special stayed with me. After all, it had a name. Like the Lord’s prayer and the ten commandments, being named made it stand out from the rest of the text. Also, they had me memorize it for a reason, right? It had to be special. But I still had no idea what it meant.

I’m not sure when the first time I heard someone teach on the meaning of the Beatitudes, but I remember the excitement and relief that someone was finally unlocking this mysterious and important text. The explanation that I was taught then, and several times thereafter, was that these were the attitudes we needed to enter the kingdom of heaven.

We needed to recognize the poverty of our spirit. We needed to mourn over it. We need to carry ourselves humbly, learn to hunger for God, apply mercy, purify our hearts and be contenders for peace to the point that we would even willingly suffer for righteousness. Then the kingdom and all of its benefits would be ours.

I remember teaching this very thing in Sunday School one Sunday morning. Then I read Dallas Willard’s ‘Divine Conspiracy’ that week. The following Sunday morning, I apologized the my Sunday School class, and shared with them Willard’s view that seemed to make much more sense.

Here are a couple of the problems with the "kingdom attitude" understanding:

1. Stretching the terminology. The biggest offense is the way "poor is spirit" is explained as a realization that we cannot gain purchase God's favor with our works. How do we get this type of self-awareness from the straight-forward term "poor in spirit"? Jesus does not say that it is those who realize they are poor in spirit, but simply those who are poor in spirit. In the sermon on the plain in Luke, Jesus simply says, "blessed are the poor", making it even harder to insert the idea of self-awareness.

Once you understand the first "Blessed..." being directed toward people who actually are poor in spirit, which everyone is to some degree, the whole "kingdom attitude" thing unravels a bit.

Another misuse of terminology is in understanding meekness as humility, when it is actually more like timidity.

2. The "kingdom attitude" understanding seems to set up a legalistic qualifications for entering the kingdom and receiving the blessings therein. What if we don't mourn over our sins? Is there no forgiveness? And if I do not achieve purity of heart, then what?

It assumes that the blessings are a result of who they are (poor in spirit, mourners, meek, spiritually hungry, merciful, pure, peacemakers, persecuted) rather than a result of what they have been given (the kingdom and all of its blessings).

Next time I will sum up Willard's understanding of the beatitudes and give my critique of it.

Living in a Church that disagrees with me on Women's Role in the Church

Through the discussion on women's role, I am reminded of my post on the origins of the Restoration Movement and its attempt at unity.

In that post, I shared Campbell's view that unity could only come about if the people shared a common hermeneutical method (that is a way of studying Scripture). Troy mentioned in one of his replies that women's role is not a salvation issue, and I would agree with that. Both sides believe that it is a "being the church that God intended" issue - something that we believe would make us more effective at being the people of God.

With this post, I am going to share some of my personal thoughts and struggles with the issue since I think Sam laid out the scriptural explanation better than I could. No reason to try to repeat something that was well done and still resides here to be read by anyone.

Sadly, I do not see a way around the issue of women's role creating disunity within a church without one side just acquiescing to the other. It is that way in my current church situation. At my church women are never allowed to teach men, lead in prayer, serve in a deacon capacity, or even lead the singing portion of the gathering. They can do a special musical number, teach other women, be the treasurer, fill the communion cups, or teach the children. I have decided to not make it an issue of division despite the fact that it makes my wife under utilized and makes me uncomfortable as her spiritual partner, and I am hesitant to raise my children (especially daughters) in such an environment. In this situation, I am the one that acquiesces. I struggle with whether I should.

Women's role is not something that can be avoided. I can avoid the topic of spiritual gifts because I believe they will be used whether or not an individual believes in them. I can avoid the discussion of whether someone can be saved without being baptized because I teach that people should be baptized. But I cannot take a similar approach to women's role. By remaining silent, I allow for the women in the church and in my immediate family to be treated as an inferior. If I were to speak up, I would more than likely cause division - even if it was just teaching one Sunday School lesson on the subject. It is difficult to know what to do. Most issues where I disagree with the church, I can still believe and practice what I interpret the Bible as teaching whether or not the church as a whole believes or practices what I believe. With the women's role issue, it is directly related to a women's involvment in the corporate gatherings. There is no private practice or belief that can allow me to be comfortable with the situation. I can treat Lindsay (my wife) as an equal at home, but I cannot convince others to allow her to use her musical gifts and lead worship at our church despite the fact that the church would benefit from her doing so.

I do not feel that one should leave a church over any disagreement. However, I did leave the previous denomenational church that I was attending due to the fact that I would not be allowed to use my administrative gifts because I would not give up some convictions of Scripture that I believed (and still do believe). My experience was that denomenations are much more dogmatic about leaders holding certain beliefs than the Churches of Christ/Christian Churches. I find that believing the Bible to be the primary authority on doctrine and practice is enough to satisfy most Church of Christ/Christian Church people. But I am left with the dilemma that Lindsay currently faces the same situation I faced, albeit her dilemma is caused by her gender and not by a conviction she holds about a teaching of Scripture. Ironically, Lindsay's gifts were much more utilized at the church we left.

One other observation on women's role and then I will call it a day. One problem with the situation that many churches find themselves in is that the women who want to be in leadership are the type of people that should not be in leadership. What I mean by that is that in an environment where women are oppressed, the dominineering, stubborn, and aggressive women are more likely to stand up and make their opinions and desires to lead be known. This type of personality does not make a good leader whether they are a man or a woman. The type of woman who would make a great leader is the one who does not make waves and accepts her oppression by reciprocating love. This woman would not make power grabs for the positions of church leadership that she is qualified for; she would not try to manipulate the church behind the scenes. She would respond in love and do what she is allowed to do, or she would quietly leave the church to find a place where she could use her God-given gifts and talents. It seems to me that it is up to the men (only because they are the ones in leadership in these situations) to discover these women and unleash their spiritual gifts upon the church for the glory of the Kingdom, rather than relegate them to "womens" ministries.

But how do we do that in an environment that does not believe the women have that right? I do not have an answer. And I will continue to pray and look for opportunities to bring about God's perfect kingdom here on earth. This is just one part of that.

Women's Role in the Church Part 2

***The following entries are my thoughts and responses to both Regan and Troy as expressed in Regan’s earlier entry. I apologize for the length, but it is not the sort of argument that can be made in a few short paragraphs.***

As Regan pointed out, members of both sides of the issue like to explain away passages that disagree with their viewpoint. But there is something to be said in reading the Bible in context and in light of the overarching themes of the rest of the Bible. I also think there are special contextual issues to consider when reading Paul’s writings since he is writing to address specific issues in specific churches (which are addressed in the Excursus). This understating and appreciation of what Paul is doing makes the application for a future audience more refined than simply reading and then doing. With this in mind, let me address Troy’s issues with women and their authoritative role in the church.

From the beginning (Genesis 1-2) man and woman were equal in God’s sight and complimented one another. In fact, the woman is called a “helper” (ezer) – the same word used in the Psalms to describe divine help. One would have a difficult time casting God as a subordinate. Thus, this word helper is by no means a term of denigration but a complimentary role with the expectation that the man and woman are working side by side without subordination.

But only a chapter later we find that things have changed – there is enmity between man and woman. This animosity is a result of sin in the world but is not the desired relationship that God had in mind. The effects of the fall have impacted cultural perceptions and expectations between men and women negatively ever since. From the treatment of women as second class citizens, to a view of women as property, to a denial of certain rights to women, varying cultures have diminished value of women ever since.

We see this same mentality among the Israelites/Jews as well as in the Hellenistic/Roman culture – both of which impact Jesus’ words and Paul’s writings. It seems that part of what Jesus was attempting to accomplish by instituting the Kingdom of God was reversing the perception of women and returning it God’s original intention as described in Genesis 1-2. In Luke 4, the writer describes a scene in which Jesus quotes Isaiah to show his goals for his earthly time – to free the oppressed. For the rest of the gospel of Luke the writer intentionally shows Jesus restoring and utilizing women in an effort to fulfill these words. Throughout the gospels Jesus is interacting and encouraging women to live out their faiths – and not just behind the scenes. Jesus gave worth and purpose to all people, especially the oppressed and those who were relegated to second class status. Women would clearly fall into this category. Thus in Jesus’ mind, women and men have equal status, roles, and participation in the Kingdom.

On the other hand, though Paul agrees in principal with Jesus, when it comes to practice he seems to back off and defer to cultural norms. Both Regan and Troy mentioned 1 Corinthians 12 which states that we are one body with many members and each performs different functions. There is no delineation between men and women (i.e. assigning the teaching/leading duties to men while relegating women to other duties). In addition, Paul restates this same idea in Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Throughout his writings, Paul describes a unity and equality that exists between the spiritually reborn.

In addition, Troy rightly recognized the profound impact that women had both in Paul’s spiritual formation and in his ministry. In fact, the end of Romans is rife with women. The most notable mention is Phoebe who is called a deaconess/servant/minister (diakonos). Granted, this word can mean all of those things in the Greek, but in Paul’s writings when he is speaking of the office of “deacon” he uses this word. When he speaks of servants he uses other words (doulos, oiketes, pais, etc.). So how do we reconcile this mention of a woman in a position of leadership with his “qualifications” as listed in Timothy and Titus? It seems to me that Paul was not providing a comprehensive list of qualifications but a general understanding of what would make a good leader. For example, for the qualifications for elder, what if an elder has a rebellious, unbelieving child? Should the position be withheld from that person? I say no.

This list is used so legalistically that it fails to see the point – leaders should have leadership qualities. Gender is not one. In addition, we see various examples of women in leadership in practice as well as theory. The same book that commands women to be silent (1 Cor. 14:33-35) gives instructions for women praying and prophesying in the public assembly (1 Cor. 11:2-16). This role as prophet or prayer indicates some level of authority and leadership, even over men.

The notion that men have the corner market on wisdom, knowledge and teaching ability is pure arrogance. And relegating women to teaching only children and other women is not only demeaning but fails to see the fulfillment of the Kingdom. Yes, women can be homemakers – but so can men. In the same way men can lead the church, but so can women. Only by working together, making up for one another’s deficiencies, and carrying one another’s burdens do we see the Kingdom come.

********************************************************

Excursus
In the preceding entry I wanted to form a positive argument as much as possible instead of taking a defensive posture. However, I think there are viable responses and better interpretation and application of the main passages in question. What follows is my exegesis of the two passages most often cited to keep women out of positions of leadership. Translations are NRSV.

1 Corinthians 14:32-35

“And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, for God is a God not of disorder but of peace. (As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

This passage comes in the context of instructions for orderly worship. Just as too many people speaking in tongues or prophesying can disrupt the service and cause confusion, apparently the women were doing something that was disrupting the service as well. The disruption revolves around the seating arrangement of the men and women. Apparently, the two genders sat on different sides of the meeting room and at some point when one of the women heard or experienced something she didn’t understand, she would yell over to her husband for an explanation. This sort of action did not lend itself to orderly worship either, so Paul’s words are appropriate – stay quiet; ask husbands questions at home; stop interrupting the service. This sort of advice may seem obvious to us, but seemingly the newfound freedom that the gospel brought to women was resulting in confusion and Paul must set them straight.

I do not think this passage has appropriation in the same way to our modern day services. I think things should still be done in an orderly fashion, but this does not include muzzles for the women. If a man or woman continually engages in outbursts of any sort, it would be appropriate (citing this Scripture and the surrounding context) to ask them to stop because their actions are not aiding in the praise and worship of God.

1 Timothy 2:9-15

“Women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”

This passage too had an original setting, audience, and culture. It seems that some women were drawing too much attention to themselves by the way they dressed. Bearing in mind the greater freedom that women had as a result of the gospel, there was no doubt need for advice on the way they were to present themselves. Paul urges modesty, decency and propriety, which are all against extravagance. In addition, people from their culture may have associated these styles with the local temple prostitutes. So the advice is straightforward – may your outward appearance represent your inward character. Or, “Don’t look like a prostitute since you aren’t suppose to act like one.”

Paul then moves on from outward appearance to other actions. If we suppose that women, newly emancipated through faith in Christ, had begun to dominate the public service and were in danger of bringing the church into disrepute, Paul’s advice becomes more intelligible. Women must first learn in silence with full submission. If the Corinthian passage is any indication, Paul’s experience with unruly interruptions in public worship by women was not confined to that church.

This section can be illuminated even further by looking at the nuances of the original language that may have been lost in the English translation. The word translated “silence” (hesychia) in 1 Timothy 2:11 and 12, does not mean complete silence or no talking. It is clearly used elsewhere (Acts 22:2; 2 Thes. 3:12) to mean “settled down, undisturbed, not unruly.” A different word (sigao) means “to be silent, to say nothing”. In addition, most translations say that Paul does not permit women to have “authority” over a man. But this misses the problem. The word for authority is authenteo and means “to control in a domineering manner”. The AV translates this word as “usurp authority over”. We might express this idea idiomatically, with a phrase like “to bark orders at.” Thus, Paul is not calling for a silencing of women or a removal of all authority. He is concerned with the proper way for men and women to interact in the context of the church. A level of gentleness and respect is required as well as education if someone desires a position of leadership.

The rest of the passage is difficult to interpret. Paul uses an argument subordinating women which seems to be the exact opposite of the argument he uses in Romans 5. In the Romans passage Adam is represented as the first transgressor; but there is no reference made to Eve, and Adam is regarded as the head of the sinning race. In addition, I have read numerous interpretations of the phrase “will be saved through childbearing” none of which makes sense. I consider this to be a stretched analogy at best, with a fair amount of uncertainty and misunderstanding.

All of this is to say, I don’t think an appropriate application of these verses includes relegating women to lesser positions in the church or hindering them from serving in leadership positions. Interestingly enough, most consider the advice about dress to be cultural and dismiss it or reapply it, but take the advice about women’s roles in the church literally. This selective interpretation seems contrived and based on poor exegesis.

Dad splashes in the shallow end

Let me share with you the story that my mother recently shared with me concerning some long-time friends of ours.

Tanya is about ten years older than me, but we grew up in the same small church, and she is good friends with my mom. She married Art. Art is a very gifted carpenter, and has always done very well for himself.

However, with the economy being what it is, nobody was ordering anything. He hadn’t worked in months. Recently, Tanya’s son, a high school boy, I believe, asked his mom if she was still giving to God. She told him 'no'. No money had come in, so none was being given back to Him. He told her that he thinks she should give anyway, because God says that you cannot out-give him.

She said, “Fine”. She sat in church and wrote a check for basically what was left in her checking. She offered this prayer, “God, I hope this doesn’t bounce.”

That week Art got a contract to build all the counter-tops for a Walmart. And they want him to do 100 more Walmarts too. But that’s not all. Tanya just got a well-paying job too. But that’s not all. They also won some contest with Sony where Sony gave $20,000 worth of free equipment including plasma tvs, stereos, camera, video camera, a Wii, and more. Plus they will be in Sony’s internet commercials. But that’s not all they also won some other contest that my mom could not remember the details of.

So what do you do with a story like this? I hesitate to tell it. I fear people will come away with the idea that God is the magic piggy bank. "Give to him and he will fill your house with plasmas."

But I tell this story, because it's true. I know these people well. It happened. Therefore, it is a part of His story, a very fascinating part really. It is a part of who he is.

That's not him in total. Sometimes he allows the rewards to go unseen until we meet him in heaven.

And frankly, I love that God would honor the faith of a high school boy over the theology of someone with a bacheloreate in biblical theology. And I love that God stoops to the shallow now and again surprise and delight his children.

The Fall and Women's Role

"To the women he said, "I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing, in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Genesis 3:16).

Women's role in the church has come up a lot lately, and I wonder what the best way to approach it for people is. I have one friend that explains the role of women in ministry throughout the Bible. I take the approach of talking about the kingdom and God's desire for us to reach perfection.

In the perfect world before the fall, women were not ruled over by men; that was a consequence of sin. As Christians, if we are forgiven of our sins and are striving to live in perfection, then we should treat women as they were treated before the punishment of sin. As much as is possible by us, we should live as the redeemed people we are and bring about the kingdom that will fully manifest itself someday as much as possible in the here and now. That would include women not being ruled over but being treated as equals as they were before the fall.

Now how to bring that about in an environment where the church believes a woman should never teach an adult male, I do not know how to deal with that effectively.

Snapshots

I am working on a few different entries, but none are really done yet. So, here are some glimpses into events from my life over the last few weeks.

I got to see and hear Frederick Buechner a few weeks back. He was at King College inaugurating the Buechner Institute. His use of words and hyperbole entertained me while challenging me. At one point he mentioned the Hebrew word “davar” which means “word” or “thing.” His implication was that the words we speak inherently have an impact on our listeners.

I said goodbye to one of the students from my youth ministry. His parents shipped him off to Job Corps in Kentucky in the hopes that he would learn a trade. Though, in my opinion, he was not a “problem child” they treated him as such. I can only hope that my words and actions helped prepare him for the many challenges he will face in the upcoming weeks and months.

Eli Manning, who was criticized all season for not being enough of a vocal leader, let his actions do the talking as he scampered away from 300-pound linemen to complete pass after pass on the game winning drive in the Super Bowl. I guess one can lead without the charisma of Tom Brady or the “other” Manning.

Our Ash Wednesday service reminded me of the simplicity of the early church. No bands, special effects, eye catching graphics and videos, or other attention grabbers. Just candlelight, simple songs, Scripture, prayers, and a community. I received far more compliments and words of appreciation from this service than all the Sunday services I plan put together. Maybe there is something to this “Ancient-Future” thing.

This summer I am hoping to head to a monastery for a time of preparation before entering my Doctoral work. If you have any insight, advice, recommendations of locations, or would like to join me, let me know. This is something I have wanted to do for quite a while, and Carrie and I have made the decision to go ahead and do it.

This past Sunday Carrie and I announced our intended departure from the church/area at the end of the summer. It was far more emotional for me than I thought it would be. I guess I never realized how much I cared for these people. I surely know they care for my family. I suppose I let the frustration and disappointment of ministry push out the great joy and love that is right before me. As the saying goes, “You don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone.”

Nazis and the Church - The difference between Protestanst and Catholics

A recent study (What We Knew: Terror, Mass Murder, and Everyday Life in Nazi Germany: An Oral History) examined the feelings of German citizens during World War II. They did this by interviewing Germans who were still alive that had lived through the Nazi reign prior to and during World War II.

Peter Dykema notes the following in his review of the book in the Winter 2007 Issue of the World History Bulletin:

Among non-Jewish Germans, at least one-third were relatively well informed about the mass murders as they occurred, while half or more of Germans had some awareness of the atrocities (397). It is no surprise that among Jewish residents and refugees, the level of knowledge was higher still. On the question of the popularity of Hitler and teh Nazis, the authors show that, depending on the city, memories of support for the Nazi regime ranged from just oer a third of German respondents to just over half (333). Memories of support are highest among respondents living in Dresden, a Protestant city at the time and now formerly Communist, while supoort was lowest in Catholic and western Cologne.

This section prompted me to examine whether we Protestants conform too quickly to the world. We might not be conforming to Nazi rule, but we are quick to change when culture changes. I see it in issues such as woman's role, birth control, church structure, etc. Maybe these are not all bad changes, but I do see a tendency to conform to the winds of culture within the Protestant church in areas where the Catholic church remains firm (and that does not mean that the Catholics are always right).

Our sensitivity, when it is not conformity, is a benefit at times. Some times the church is wrong and society brings about a needed change in church. Other times we recognize what parts of the gospel can be more relevant to certain groups of people. This sensitivity to culture is one of our greatest assets, but it can also be our biggest albatross. Culture is not always right, but some times it is.

I look at the Amish who look at technologies and question whether they will be a benefit to their community. How do we measure whether a cultural change will be beneficial? What is our measuring stick? Or will we be just like the Protestant churches in World War II and support the government despite their great atrocities because that is what the culture is doing?

Let us remain firm where we need to remain firm and be changing where it would benefit the kingdom to change. And may God help us to discern when to do what.

Motivation Mentality

"'Even now,' declares the Lord,
'return to me with all your heart,
with fasting and weeping and mourning.
Rend your heart and not your garments.'"
Joel 2:12

Why do we do the things we do? Why are we passionate about the things that drive us? What is our motivation?

Our motivations seem so skewed these days. They are either completely selfish or based on arbitrary and unimportant factors. Let me give you an example. I turned on the TV last week. It happened to be tuned into ESPN and if you recall last week’s focus was of course the Super Bowl. I was ready to switch the channel when I saw a summary of Sal Palintonio’s report. It read, “Pats using distractions to motivate.” I’m sorry, did I read that correctly? Apparently, striving for a perfect season, striving for immortality, striving to attain the life long dream of winning a Super Bowl is not enough motivation. And they aren’t the only athletes who use external influences to motivate themselves. They call it “board material.” Any sorts of trash talking or guarantees make it onto some board with the intent of making the players play harder and perform at a higher level. Yes, you read that correctly. Somehow, professional athletes who get paid millions to play a game they love need a put down to give it their all. What a joke.

But are Christians any different? Am I? Why do we strive for holiness? Why do we go to church? Why do we practice the disciplines? Sometimes I wonder if I do it out of duty or to impress others or just because I am supposed to – after all I am a minister.

My church just had an Ash Wednesday service that challenged those in attendance to fast from something they cherish. What did I choose? Pop/Soda and food on Wednesdays. Why? Well, primarily they are two things I love, but giving them up will result in health benefits. The fact is, these items are not all that challenging for me to give up, and I doubt I am going to spend my time drawing near to God. All this is to say, my motivation for fasting is not to bask in the presence of my loving God. I am not doing it because I want to experience God in a new and awesome way. Though the whole concept of fasting should revolve around selflessness I can somehow turn it into selfishness. I am just reflecting a culture of selfish external motivation.

So, while writing this entry, I have made a decision to forgo much of the mindless television watching that I do at night. Typically, I sit in front of the TV from 9 until 11 at night, usually with a laptop in hand, watching sports or whatever else is on. But I don’t need to. I need to be practicing the disciplines. More importantly, I want to. I want to renew my faith. I want to return with all my heart.

God,

On this day, Ash Wednesday, we are reminded that we are but dust. You created us from dust and to dust we will return. This is a reminder to us that we should not think so highly of ourselves.

But today, I realize that dust, at least, is not evil. Dust does not breathe, dance, pray, sing, or serve. However, it also does not boast. It does not hate or lust. It does not steal or withhold. It does not choose entertainment or distraction over mission and love. It does not look down or get annoyed. Dust does not take your forgiveness and mercy for granted. Dust, at least, is not evil.

Please, take this time to remind us that we are not entitled to you. Help us remember our past sins and become aware of current sins, so that we grasp how big your grace must be to include us.

Love,
Shannon

Song of my worth 2

Jesus, All For Jesus

(Robin Mark)

Jesus, all for Jesus,

All I am and have and ever hope to be.

Jesus, all for Jesus,

All I am and have and ever hope to be.

All of my ambitions, hopes and plans

I surrender these into Your hands.

All of my ambitions, hopes and plans

I surrender these into Your hands.

For it's only in Your will that I am free,

For it's only in Your will that I am free,

Jesus, all for Jesus,

All I am and have and ever hope to be.

Song of my worth 1

Knowing You

(Graham Kendrick)

All I once held dear, built my life upon,

All this world reveres and wars to own,

All I once thought gain I have counted loss,

Spent and worthless now compared to this.

CHORUS

Knowing you, Jesus, Knowing You,

There is no greater thing.

You’re my all, You’re the best,

You’re my joy, my righteousness,

And I love You, Lord.

Now my heart’s desire is to know You more,

To be found in You, and known as Yours.

To possess by faith what I could not earn,

All surpassing gift of righteousness. (to chorus)

Oh, to know the pow’r of Your risen life,

And to know You in Your sufferings.

To become like You in Your death, my Lord,

So with You to live and never die. (to chorus)

Nun and Monk Crisis

Decrease in numbers of nuns and monks.

I do not know what to think exactly. Part of me dislikes the whole monastery system - at least what it has become. I do not see a role in Christians separating themselves from the culture around them nor in having a two-tiered system of discipleship, which the monastery system promotes.

Modern radical discipleship is what we are each called to. The church needs to proclaim this from the rooftops, alleyways, and sewers - not just promote it to a few within the church who take vows to follow the footsteps of a radical Jesus. Every Christian needs to learn how to completely devote themselves to Christ in the place and position they find themselves in. If it is impossible to be a complete disciple of Christ in our current situation, then we need to flee from the situation no matter how pleasurable it might be. There is no two-tiered Christianity where it is okay for some to be mediocre in their faith while others are radical. We are all called to be radical followers of Christ, each in our own way although similar in principles. A community of radical disciples will naturally lead to us having a transformative impact on our society that we shop, live, and work in. We cannot have that impact if we isolate ourselves from the society and live in monasteries or isolated houses. (The isolation of monasteries is not just something Catholics face, many outside of the Catholic church still isolate themselves from society despite living physically within the society. They take being not of the world to mean not even associated with the world except to make money.)

I understand the value of the monastery in the past. There were times when monasteries were necessary. In the millenium following Christ, they were used as evangelistic tools. At other times they were the place where radical discipleship was preserved during periods of depravity in the church.

When they are needed again, monasteries will spring up. Sadly, we have the tendency to keep institutions running long after they have served their purpose.