I came across this article while preparing a sermon. Thought I might shed some light on the discussion we have been having about finding the gospel lived out in different places. It is a bit lengthy but worth the read.
They are a Stiff-Necked People (Exod. 32: 9-10)
by Kosuke Koyama (the John D.Rockefeller, Jr., Professor of Ecumenics and World Christianity at Union Theology Seminary in New York City). This article appeared in the Christian Century, August 30-September 6, 1989, p. 779. Slightly edited for length.
And the Lord said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people; now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them" [Exod. 32: 9-10].
This is remarkable! God is criticizing God’s own people! But the God of the Bible criticizes God’s own people. If Israel is stiff-necked, God declares it so. This God has a universal vista. "You shall not show partiality; and you shall not take a bribe. for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous" (Deut. 16:19). The God who does not take bribes is a universal, impartial and just God.
This God troubles us about the American flag, so frequently placed near church altars. The biblical God is deeply concerned about the well-being of people of all nations. God’s universality must be demonstrated in the church of Christ whose concern is human salvation. Any nation that symbolically claims special favor is attempting to bribe and domesticate the universal God. God cannot be bribed. We only bribe ourselves, damaging our spiritual and intellectual integrity in the process. When we bribe ourselves we become self-righteous.
Because God is not partial (Rom. 2:10) , God is especially concerned about those who go to bed without a cloak (Duet. 24:13) If God were partial, God would treat everyone with geometrical sameness. The impartiality of God can be applied to all people of all nations. "I have seen the Americans (or Germans, Japanese or Indonesians . . .) , and behold, they are a stiff-necked people." The saying may also be applied to religions. This universal God of the Bible could say, "I have seen Christians (or Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims . . .), and behold, they are a stiff-necked people." This God may say something outrageous, such as, "I have seen the afflictions of the Palestinians who are in Israel. I know their sufferings, and I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Israelites" (see Exod. 3:7,8; also Amos 9:7).
Humanity can benefit from studying the "failures" of Israel.. Through Israel’s failures -- stiff-neckedness -- -we can come to know the reality of human history and the nature of the universal God. When a people is stiff-necked, what should God do with them? "Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them." But Moses intercedes with God. He admonishes God. "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people" (Exod. 32:14).
This is an astounding development in the narrative of the golden calf. God’s sincerity is completely free from bias and prejudice. It is awe-inspiringly universal. When God repents God reveals something of the mystery of our salvation. God becomes vulnerable because of God’s intense love for humanity. (How seldom do politicians and theologians repent!) That God "repents" means God’s love overwhelms God’s justice. It is never that God’s justice is overcome by injustice. God’s mind is agitated: "My mind is turning over inside me. My emotions are agitated altogether" (Hos. 11:8 [Anchor Bible]) Yet God’s love refuses to be frustrated and defeated: "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost, until he finds it?" (Luke 15:4)
God’s love makes God scandalous. The Pharisees and the scribes murmured, "This man receives sinners and eats with them" (Luke 15:2). This is a picture of the salvific truth of God’s "repentance." Personal relationship -- loving relationship -- is of central importance to this universal God. Therefore God is impassioned. "I, the Lord your God, am an impassioned god" (Exod. 20:5). God is neither absolute (without relationship) nor relative (settling for 99 sheep!) "God is love" (I John 4:8)
It is this God, universal because impartial, and vulnerable because passionately loving, who leads us to say: "The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise" (Ps. 5 1:17). When we say this from the heart, we are healed of our stiff-neckedness.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Our Temporal and Eternal Citizenships and Self-Criticism
My reply to comments by Barry Zimmerman in a previous, and now older, post became rather lengthy, so here they are.
For starters (although others also have these)
Freedom of the press
Freedom to assemble
Freedom to have any ideas I want
It would all depend on what specific country we were comparing ourselves with. I would assume that we could find actions and programs in every country that is better than ours and vice-versa.
That would be true because you are not from Ecuador. An American should not go into Ecuador and try to make them American. We should go or send people to go and try to make a non-Christian nation Christian. I guess that shows the heirarchy of citizenship we adhere to. However, for social improvements, a citizen of Ecuador should try to make him and his neighbors better whether he saw a new and more effective idea in France or Zimbabwe. The same is true for an American. Wherever we see a better idea, it is beneficial to bring it home and share it. Americans do not like the idea that others might be doing something better, but no civilization has ever done everything best. Each civilization has things they do better and things they do worse.
I think part of it is that we have gone into defensive mode from all of the criticism, some right and some wrong, that we receive from those outside of America. We do not want to be criticized, but we all know that we have lots of areas that we can improve in.
As for self-criticism, I can point out how my family needs to do things better. If I was humble, I would willingly allow others to point out how my family could be better. It is okay to criticize your own to improve them. It is not the same in criticizing others. I am not responsible to go around town and be critical of all of the families. I would only only give contructive criticism to a family if I were asked by them, and then I would tread lightly. However, I am responsible to criticize my own in order to make it better. Self-criticism is an acceptable and expected form of criticism.
Also, are there people in Ecuador that claim that Ecuador is God's nation or any such from of that? There are here, and they are trying to "reclaim" this nation for God making many people dislike those who follow Christ for reasons that we should be disliked. Let the world refuse to follow Christ because of his radical demands on their lives, not on the stupidity of those who follow him.
You can be bold and share that but you were not there. It was well received in the end. And I did want it to be shocking because I believe the idea that our eternal citizenship overrides our temporal citizenship is extremely shocking to many older Christians. It would not be shocking to someone that has already thought it out and believed it.
If love of country blinds us from its flaws or prevents us from doing the will of God, then it is wrong. I will disobey the laws of thise land when they contradict Scriptrue. The two citizenships are not equal nor are the expectations and requirements of our temporal citizenship always in line with our eternal citizenship. A good American citizen is not always a good Kingdom citizen, nor is a good Kingdom citizen always a good American citizen.
"Give some examples on where the US is more right than some others."
For starters (although others also have these)
Freedom of the press
Freedom to assemble
Freedom to have any ideas I want
It would all depend on what specific country we were comparing ourselves with. I would assume that we could find actions and programs in every country that is better than ours and vice-versa.
"I don't find it of great importance to teach someone in Ecuador that "christianity is bigger than Ecuador" and would do harm to the cause if I bothered teaching how I think America does it better."
That would be true because you are not from Ecuador. An American should not go into Ecuador and try to make them American. We should go or send people to go and try to make a non-Christian nation Christian. I guess that shows the heirarchy of citizenship we adhere to. However, for social improvements, a citizen of Ecuador should try to make him and his neighbors better whether he saw a new and more effective idea in France or Zimbabwe. The same is true for an American. Wherever we see a better idea, it is beneficial to bring it home and share it. Americans do not like the idea that others might be doing something better, but no civilization has ever done everything best. Each civilization has things they do better and things they do worse.
I think part of it is that we have gone into defensive mode from all of the criticism, some right and some wrong, that we receive from those outside of America. We do not want to be criticized, but we all know that we have lots of areas that we can improve in.
As for self-criticism, I can point out how my family needs to do things better. If I was humble, I would willingly allow others to point out how my family could be better. It is okay to criticize your own to improve them. It is not the same in criticizing others. I am not responsible to go around town and be critical of all of the families. I would only only give contructive criticism to a family if I were asked by them, and then I would tread lightly. However, I am responsible to criticize my own in order to make it better. Self-criticism is an acceptable and expected form of criticism.
Also, are there people in Ecuador that claim that Ecuador is God's nation or any such from of that? There are here, and they are trying to "reclaim" this nation for God making many people dislike those who follow Christ for reasons that we should be disliked. Let the world refuse to follow Christ because of his radical demands on their lives, not on the stupidity of those who follow him.
"if you get strange looks sharing that point of view I'm gonna be so bold as to say it's the way in which it is being shared that is getting the looks."
You can be bold and share that but you were not there. It was well received in the end. And I did want it to be shocking because I believe the idea that our eternal citizenship overrides our temporal citizenship is extremely shocking to many older Christians. It would not be shocking to someone that has already thought it out and believed it.
"There's nothing wrong with having a love or country it's not inconsistent with a loyalty to Christ which is what I sometimes feel these viewpoints ae communicating."
If love of country blinds us from its flaws or prevents us from doing the will of God, then it is wrong. I will disobey the laws of thise land when they contradict Scriptrue. The two citizenships are not equal nor are the expectations and requirements of our temporal citizenship always in line with our eternal citizenship. A good American citizen is not always a good Kingdom citizen, nor is a good Kingdom citizen always a good American citizen.
The Sermon on the Mount, Barack Obama and James Dobson
Today, Barack Obama will come under attack by James Dobson on Focus on the Family. I find the whole debate interesting.
In regards to the United States' military and Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, Obama stated, "A passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application." Later, he said, "Folks haven't been reading their Bibles."
What I find interesting is that Obama's understanding of the Sermon on the Mount is accurate; however, he then moves on to ignore the radical teaching of Jesus and not apply it to his belief system.
On the other hand, Dobson does not seem to do any better even though he is throwing the first stone. Dobson doesn't even go as far as Obama in that Obama actually realizes the radical teaching of Jesus; he just refuses to follow it through some method of justification. Dobson has a method of interpretation that allows him to apparently say the radical teaching is not there. He, like Obama, has some sort of method of justifying the radical teaching of non-violence away. The Sermon on the Mount clearly teaches a lifestyle that makes serving in the United States military impossible. Obama's sees this, but does not apply it. Dobson does not see it.
In an email response from an agent of Dr. Dobson to a listener who was writing with concern about Focus on the Family's support of the Iraq war, Focus on the Family described their position: "Dr. Dobson doesn’t like war and killing any better than you do, but he believes that this may be one of those moments in history when we are forced to settle for a trade-off: the lives of the few in exchange for the lives of the many."
At the core of the debate, which will never really be discussed, is how do we interpret and apply Scripture. Is the Old Testament law still applicable? How do we handle the counter-cultural statements contained in the Sermon on the Mount? Each one of use has decided for ourselves how we handle the Scriptures; some people have more clearly defined and consistent methods while others just pick and choose. This debate, at its core, is truly about methods of interpretation, and I do not think either Dobson or Obama want to apply the clear and difficult teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. But then neither do we. We still all have our eyes and hands despite sinning.
I am not as consistent as I would like to believe I am.
In regards to the United States' military and Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, Obama stated, "A passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application." Later, he said, "Folks haven't been reading their Bibles."
What I find interesting is that Obama's understanding of the Sermon on the Mount is accurate; however, he then moves on to ignore the radical teaching of Jesus and not apply it to his belief system.
On the other hand, Dobson does not seem to do any better even though he is throwing the first stone. Dobson doesn't even go as far as Obama in that Obama actually realizes the radical teaching of Jesus; he just refuses to follow it through some method of justification. Dobson has a method of interpretation that allows him to apparently say the radical teaching is not there. He, like Obama, has some sort of method of justifying the radical teaching of non-violence away. The Sermon on the Mount clearly teaches a lifestyle that makes serving in the United States military impossible. Obama's sees this, but does not apply it. Dobson does not see it.
In an email response from an agent of Dr. Dobson to a listener who was writing with concern about Focus on the Family's support of the Iraq war, Focus on the Family described their position: "Dr. Dobson doesn’t like war and killing any better than you do, but he believes that this may be one of those moments in history when we are forced to settle for a trade-off: the lives of the few in exchange for the lives of the many."
At the core of the debate, which will never really be discussed, is how do we interpret and apply Scripture. Is the Old Testament law still applicable? How do we handle the counter-cultural statements contained in the Sermon on the Mount? Each one of use has decided for ourselves how we handle the Scriptures; some people have more clearly defined and consistent methods while others just pick and choose. This debate, at its core, is truly about methods of interpretation, and I do not think either Dobson or Obama want to apply the clear and difficult teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. But then neither do we. We still all have our eyes and hands despite sinning.
Matthew 5:29-30 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
I am not as consistent as I would like to believe I am.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Solidariedade - Part 2
Probably you have heard numerous lessons and sermons from this passage. Probably you have heard numerous lessons and sermons telling you to serve other people. Many of you have gone on mission trips to help people. Many of you have served at soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Many of you have felt the need to help those less fortunate than you and be nice to the strangers and wierdos and freaks. And in our churches these sorts of actions are praised as sacrificial servanthood. But are these sorts of actions a real application of these verses? After all, don’t we just return to our comfortable homes and lifestyles when our time of service ends? Is this Christ’s example? Is this truly emptying ourselves?
What are you really giving up when you go on mission trips, or when you gather food for the boy scouts can drive, or when you donate clothes and coats, or when you buy toys for tots, or when you serve food at the local homeless shelter? These are all good programs and important to our society, but when you stop and think about it, what is the cost? Old cans of nasty beans that we weren’t going to eat? An old coat that is out of style and has been stuffed into the back of our closets for years? Some time that we probably would have spent playing a Wii or checking our Myspaces and facebooks? This isn’t sacrifice. This isn’t counting the cost.
Don’t get me wrong. While our acts of service are good and well intentioned I don’t think they get at what Paul is talking about in Philippians.
That is what separates Solidariedade from our notions of service. Considering others’ needs with no regard to your own flies in the face of what society expects from us. Entire businesses are built upon you getting what you want when you want it. It seems to me that we are willing to help people as long as it doesn’t really lower our own position. We will give people a hand out to put them on our level but we will not lift them up above ourselves. If we truly want to follow Christ’s example our actions do not stop with accepting one another as equal. Following Christ revolves around elevating others above your own position which may well mean lowering yourself. Giving up your rights. Sacrificing what you want.
Most of the time, when we truly count the cost, I am afraid that we decide it is too expensive and go for a cheaper version. For example, when the clothing drive comes my way, I could give away my best name brand shirt, but I look so good in it and I love the way it fits and feels. Wouldn’t it just be easier to give an old t-shirt that I never wear. What’s the difference? Shirtless people are still getting shirts, right? If you can’t see the difference in these two acts then you have missed the point for the day. You’ve missed what Solidariedade is all about. You’ve missed following the example of your Savior.
But this is a hard message to preach and even harder to live out. I struggle with it regularly. What is the balance between enjoying God’s blessings and elevating others above ourselves? Am I supposed take literally the command that Jesus gave to the rich man when Jesus told him to sell everything he had, give it to the poor and then follow? Should I cease buying anything new and just for enjoyment because other people are going without basic needs? Should I be plagued with guilt because I have contributed to the oppression and poverty in the world by creating the very demand that has caused such things?
I don’t know. I just don’t know. I go round and round with these thoughts all the time. I don’t have all the answers, but I know this – if we neglect the needs that are right in front of us and continue to live a life of luxury while others live in poverty we cannot be in the place God wants us to be. We cannot be following the example of Christ. We aren’t regarding others better than ourselves.
God is calling you to empty yourself so that others can be raised up. It may be dirty. It may be nasty. It may be uncomfortable. It may go against every instinct of self-preservation you have. But it is the essence of the life of a disciple.
In Latin America they call it Solidariedade. We just call it living the Christian life. May you embrace the life to which God has called you – a life of emptying yourself in the same way that your Savior emptied himself for you.
What are you really giving up when you go on mission trips, or when you gather food for the boy scouts can drive, or when you donate clothes and coats, or when you buy toys for tots, or when you serve food at the local homeless shelter? These are all good programs and important to our society, but when you stop and think about it, what is the cost? Old cans of nasty beans that we weren’t going to eat? An old coat that is out of style and has been stuffed into the back of our closets for years? Some time that we probably would have spent playing a Wii or checking our Myspaces and facebooks? This isn’t sacrifice. This isn’t counting the cost.
Don’t get me wrong. While our acts of service are good and well intentioned I don’t think they get at what Paul is talking about in Philippians.
That is what separates Solidariedade from our notions of service. Considering others’ needs with no regard to your own flies in the face of what society expects from us. Entire businesses are built upon you getting what you want when you want it. It seems to me that we are willing to help people as long as it doesn’t really lower our own position. We will give people a hand out to put them on our level but we will not lift them up above ourselves. If we truly want to follow Christ’s example our actions do not stop with accepting one another as equal. Following Christ revolves around elevating others above your own position which may well mean lowering yourself. Giving up your rights. Sacrificing what you want.
Most of the time, when we truly count the cost, I am afraid that we decide it is too expensive and go for a cheaper version. For example, when the clothing drive comes my way, I could give away my best name brand shirt, but I look so good in it and I love the way it fits and feels. Wouldn’t it just be easier to give an old t-shirt that I never wear. What’s the difference? Shirtless people are still getting shirts, right? If you can’t see the difference in these two acts then you have missed the point for the day. You’ve missed what Solidariedade is all about. You’ve missed following the example of your Savior.
But this is a hard message to preach and even harder to live out. I struggle with it regularly. What is the balance between enjoying God’s blessings and elevating others above ourselves? Am I supposed take literally the command that Jesus gave to the rich man when Jesus told him to sell everything he had, give it to the poor and then follow? Should I cease buying anything new and just for enjoyment because other people are going without basic needs? Should I be plagued with guilt because I have contributed to the oppression and poverty in the world by creating the very demand that has caused such things?
I don’t know. I just don’t know. I go round and round with these thoughts all the time. I don’t have all the answers, but I know this – if we neglect the needs that are right in front of us and continue to live a life of luxury while others live in poverty we cannot be in the place God wants us to be. We cannot be following the example of Christ. We aren’t regarding others better than ourselves.
God is calling you to empty yourself so that others can be raised up. It may be dirty. It may be nasty. It may be uncomfortable. It may go against every instinct of self-preservation you have. But it is the essence of the life of a disciple.
In Latin America they call it Solidariedade. We just call it living the Christian life. May you embrace the life to which God has called you – a life of emptying yourself in the same way that your Savior emptied himself for you.
Friday, June 20, 2008
God Wants You to Vote Repbulican
What a story.
Pastors Challenge Law, Endorse Candidates From Pulpit
I know the sentiment that God is a Republican creeps in the minds of many in my church, but I believe that you can be a Democrat and a Christian too. For those "God is a Republican" people, let me ask whether God loves military invasions, oil companies profiting, not talking to our enemies, and definitely not turning the other cheek.
From the "jr. highish" Derek Webb song I quoted the other day:
That second lie will be repeated an awful lot this election season. Let us prepare ourselves to interact intelligently with it (which this post is barely even a meager start of).
This election should be challenging to the church as a whole in that the Republicans no longer have a pro-life candidate. It was easy for us to say that we are pro-life and we will vote Republican. It was always my hope that we would have a pro-life Democrat rather than a pro-choice Republican to challenge the church's partisan thinking, but the cards have been dealt differently.
If we are really issue voters rather than Republicans, this election should cause us to evaluate all the options and issues a little more closely. What are the issues besides abortion that Jesus would be concerned about? I find myself leaning towards voting Obama this election because of the answers I have to that question. I will definitely not vote for McCain since he does not stand for any of the issues I care about. A third party candidate could receive my vote. (You can read about those issues in a post I made on January 13 - I am still waiting for a Presidential Candidate - Trying to shape a Christian political view My thoughts are just a work in progress, but the progress has me leaning left this year.
I know this is not a political blog, but it is nice to be reminded that Christians need to be issue voters, not aligned with any party, and free to vote for the candidate that they feel best represents the cause of Christ. Don't guilt us into thinking we should vote Republican. Let our own conscience, that has been molded through fellowship and the Scriptures, decide. Jesus is not a Republican, nor is he a Democrat.
Pastors Challenge Law, Endorse Candidates From Pulpit
I know the sentiment that God is a Republican creeps in the minds of many in my church, but I believe that you can be a Democrat and a Christian too. For those "God is a Republican" people, let me ask whether God loves military invasions, oil companies profiting, not talking to our enemies, and definitely not turning the other cheek.
From the "jr. highish" Derek Webb song I quoted the other day:
there are two great lies that i’ve heard:
“the day you eat of the fruit of that tree, you will not surely die”
and that Jesus Christ was a white, middle-class republican
and if you wanna be saved you have to learn to be like Him
That second lie will be repeated an awful lot this election season. Let us prepare ourselves to interact intelligently with it (which this post is barely even a meager start of).
This election should be challenging to the church as a whole in that the Republicans no longer have a pro-life candidate. It was easy for us to say that we are pro-life and we will vote Republican. It was always my hope that we would have a pro-life Democrat rather than a pro-choice Republican to challenge the church's partisan thinking, but the cards have been dealt differently.
If we are really issue voters rather than Republicans, this election should cause us to evaluate all the options and issues a little more closely. What are the issues besides abortion that Jesus would be concerned about? I find myself leaning towards voting Obama this election because of the answers I have to that question. I will definitely not vote for McCain since he does not stand for any of the issues I care about. A third party candidate could receive my vote. (You can read about those issues in a post I made on January 13 - I am still waiting for a Presidential Candidate - Trying to shape a Christian political view My thoughts are just a work in progress, but the progress has me leaning left this year.
I know this is not a political blog, but it is nice to be reminded that Christians need to be issue voters, not aligned with any party, and free to vote for the candidate that they feel best represents the cause of Christ. Don't guilt us into thinking we should vote Republican. Let our own conscience, that has been molded through fellowship and the Scriptures, decide. Jesus is not a Republican, nor is he a Democrat.
Solidariedade - Part 1
There are some dirty jobs out there. There are some things we would never do – never think of doing. Each of us has our boundaries that we will just refuse to go outside of. And so we come to our word for the day – Solidariedade. This concept is one of the most cherished values of Latin American culture. This concept focuses on helping others with no regard for one’s own wealth or poverty. If someone has a need, you help whether you have the resources or not. And if that need requires doing something that makes you uncomfortable, even repulses you, you do it. Why? Because you have placed the welfare of others above your own. This idea mirrors one found in Scripture:
“Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.”
Philippians 2:3-8 (NRSV)
Really think about the impact of what Jesus did. Imagine the President of the United States becoming a bed pan changer in a retirement home. Imagine the King of some nation going around and picking up trash after his subjects. These images are only scratching the surface of what Jesus did. Why would God become a slave? Because he had the fate of all humanity in mind when he gave up his Deity.
Consider the implications of following Christ’s example. When we serve we are not just aiding someone in need. When we serve as Christ serves, we are participating in the divine nature. We are living out the very purpose for which God created us.
“Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.”
Philippians 2:3-8 (NRSV)
Really think about the impact of what Jesus did. Imagine the President of the United States becoming a bed pan changer in a retirement home. Imagine the King of some nation going around and picking up trash after his subjects. These images are only scratching the surface of what Jesus did. Why would God become a slave? Because he had the fate of all humanity in mind when he gave up his Deity.
Consider the implications of following Christ’s example. When we serve we are not just aiding someone in need. When we serve as Christ serves, we are participating in the divine nature. We are living out the very purpose for which God created us.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Other Cultures and Our Faith - Testing Ourselves
This is in reply to the comments on Sam's last post, In Other Words. It became lengthier than just a comment.
At various times our interpretations of the Bible become so wrapped up in the culture (whether local church or American culture) we are immersed in that we can be blinded to wrong understandings, interpretations, or applications. Without looking at other cultures (whether our former self, the church down the road, in another counrty, or in ages past) we miss an available opportunity to have our biblical interpretations and extra-biblical practices checked. I see no reason to not use all of the options available in testing our spirit and strengthening our faith.
There is nothing worse for an individual or a church than to live in isolation and not check their beliefs with those outside their belief system. If people regularly practiced this, we would have less manipulative cults and the like, and we would have a much healthier dialogue with those different than us regarding those differences. Instead, I see people often get angry because they really do not know why they believe or practice what they believe or practice. People continue on in empty rituals long after they lost their meaning for their grandparents. Checking ourselves with other cultures is our safety net to insure that the group we are involved in does not lead us astray. If we believe our group does know the truth, the truth can withstand and be strenghtened by a challenge from falsehood.
People in isolation, including myself at times, can come up with all sorts of crazy beliefs when left alone in a quiet room with the Scriptures and no interaction with other people. This is one of the main reasons Lone Ranger Christianity is dangerous. As an individual, it is beneficial to vet one's fresh convictions (whether we claim they are from the Spirit, a careful study of Scripture, or both - I am trying to cover the base of all possible religious backgrounds here) with others to see if those interpretations make sense. As a church, we can compare our convictions with other churches. It forces us to examine our differences and come to a more solid understanding of the reasons we hold to our beliefs. If we do not have a solid, biblical or cultural, not anti-biblical, reason to be different, then we might be creating an unnecessary obstacle to living out the Gospel in Christian community. I see no other method besides comparing ourselves with other cultures that could provide the testing and accountability that would produce a more consistent and trustworthy understanding of the Scriptures.
It is not that other cultures are always right, but it is that other cultures are more right on some things than we are. Oftentimes, we are blinded by my own mental rituals of study and practice. If I were residing in another culture, that truth would still stand for me there. It is always beneficial to look at those from another background to see how they interpret the Scriptures and to check our teachings where we disagree. They might just be right. If they are, I am happy to change; although you might find that I am stubborn and that I change slowly.
It is a dangerous cultural or individual hubris to think that we are at the pinnacle of knowledge and advancement in all areas of understanding and practice. An honest study of history will show that no generation nor individual outside of Christ has been at that pinnacle. Every age and individual has its faults and its glories. They might have one area right while completely faililng in another. Unfortunately, we do the same. A careful examination of our beliefs and practices through studying other cultures will help us avoid the pride and pitfalls of pinnaclelism. We have much to improve. Figuring out what are our faults within a culture of shared faults is difficult; actually following through with the changes after uncovering those faults is even more difficult, especially when those changes are couter-cultural like many of the demands of being a disciple of Christ are.
At various times our interpretations of the Bible become so wrapped up in the culture (whether local church or American culture) we are immersed in that we can be blinded to wrong understandings, interpretations, or applications. Without looking at other cultures (whether our former self, the church down the road, in another counrty, or in ages past) we miss an available opportunity to have our biblical interpretations and extra-biblical practices checked. I see no reason to not use all of the options available in testing our spirit and strengthening our faith.
There is nothing worse for an individual or a church than to live in isolation and not check their beliefs with those outside their belief system. If people regularly practiced this, we would have less manipulative cults and the like, and we would have a much healthier dialogue with those different than us regarding those differences. Instead, I see people often get angry because they really do not know why they believe or practice what they believe or practice. People continue on in empty rituals long after they lost their meaning for their grandparents. Checking ourselves with other cultures is our safety net to insure that the group we are involved in does not lead us astray. If we believe our group does know the truth, the truth can withstand and be strenghtened by a challenge from falsehood.
People in isolation, including myself at times, can come up with all sorts of crazy beliefs when left alone in a quiet room with the Scriptures and no interaction with other people. This is one of the main reasons Lone Ranger Christianity is dangerous. As an individual, it is beneficial to vet one's fresh convictions (whether we claim they are from the Spirit, a careful study of Scripture, or both - I am trying to cover the base of all possible religious backgrounds here) with others to see if those interpretations make sense. As a church, we can compare our convictions with other churches. It forces us to examine our differences and come to a more solid understanding of the reasons we hold to our beliefs. If we do not have a solid, biblical or cultural, not anti-biblical, reason to be different, then we might be creating an unnecessary obstacle to living out the Gospel in Christian community. I see no other method besides comparing ourselves with other cultures that could provide the testing and accountability that would produce a more consistent and trustworthy understanding of the Scriptures.
It is not that other cultures are always right, but it is that other cultures are more right on some things than we are. Oftentimes, we are blinded by my own mental rituals of study and practice. If I were residing in another culture, that truth would still stand for me there. It is always beneficial to look at those from another background to see how they interpret the Scriptures and to check our teachings where we disagree. They might just be right. If they are, I am happy to change; although you might find that I am stubborn and that I change slowly.
It is a dangerous cultural or individual hubris to think that we are at the pinnacle of knowledge and advancement in all areas of understanding and practice. An honest study of history will show that no generation nor individual outside of Christ has been at that pinnacle. Every age and individual has its faults and its glories. They might have one area right while completely faililng in another. Unfortunately, we do the same. A careful examination of our beliefs and practices through studying other cultures will help us avoid the pride and pitfalls of pinnaclelism. We have much to improve. Figuring out what are our faults within a culture of shared faults is difficult; actually following through with the changes after uncovering those faults is even more difficult, especially when those changes are couter-cultural like many of the demands of being a disciple of Christ are.
Friday, June 13, 2008
In Other Words
I was at High School Church Camp last week. The theme was, “In other words…” We challenged our mindsets by asking a few questions:
We attempted to answer these questions by using words from other cultures laden with meaning to show that those cultures understand and live out the message of the gospel, even if they don’t know it. All cultures contain “neutral” or “naturally good” elements in non-Christian ways of life. These elements are often consistent with the Gospel message and serve as points of contact between otherwise dissimilar cultures and worldviews. In Other Words…God does not show favoritism but accepts all those who fear him and do what is right.
The following is a quick breakdown of the words and the theological implications that arise from their cultural context. Next week I will post an edited version of my sermon from day 3.
Day 1: Namaste – “In the image of God he created them”
Namaste is a combination of two Sanskrit words and is literally rendered “I bow to you” and understood to be an acknowledgment of the divine spark within each person. It is a traditional Hindu greeting in India that has become more popular around the globe (especially since its usage in the hit show “Lost”). The greeting is usually given with head bowed, palms pressed together and held close to the chest. It can be heard being exchanged by lepers in Calcutta.
The theological principle, imago Dei, is often affirmed and less often practiced by Christians. Our tendency to judge others by their appearance, health, or social standing splinters our globe, our culture, even our church. Jesus amazed and angered others by his willingness to affirm God’s image in all people through touch, presence, and healing. We too are called recognize to the image of God in others, be they beautiful and powerful or crippled and neglected.
Day 2: Ubuntu – “We are all members of one body”
A belief in ubuntu is prevalent throughout the African continent. It is a word with no English counterpart that is roughly translated “I am because you are.” Desmond Tutu credits a belief in ubuntu for the success of reconciliation movements in South Africa after the fall of apartheid. It’s a mindset that values forgiveness, hospitality, and compassion and challenges us to connect our livelihood with the livelihood of others.
Regardless of how we view one another, there are forces at work in our culture that make it difficult for us to live in community with people, even our friends. Individualism, materialism, and right of privacy all work counter to the desire Jesus articulated in his final prayer on earth. Forgiveness, transparency, and a genuine concern for the welfare of others are all needed to truly experience the community God desires.
Day 3: Solidariedade – Look not to your own interests but to the interests of others
Solidariedade is one of the most cherished values of Latin American culture. It has been defined as “helping others in an organized and effective way,” with no regard for one’s own wealth or poverty. Solidariedade surpasses our own English notions of compassion and care and approaches more closely Paul’s ideas of humility as expressed in Philippians 2.
The difference between solidariedade and our understandings of service in America are subtle. Service is a highly esteemed virtue, even in America’s mainstream culture, but it is often viewed as what we do for others after we have tended to ourselves. In our context to disregard our own needs is more often seen as a vice rather than a virtue. Solidariedade is not a possibility as much as it is a responsibility and a core value of Brazilian society.
Day 4: Tao – “I am the way, the truth and the life”
For over 2500 years the Tao has been a pivotal concept throughout much of China. Tao literally means path, or way. Tao refers both to the way of ultimate reality that is beyond human comprehension and the way or rhythm of the universe with which human life meshes.
Too often Christianity is consumed with keeping rules and memorizing facts, even though Jesus never displayed this obsession. Instead Jesus was (and is) concerned that his disciples follow and model the way of life that he pioneered, a way of life animated by the Spirit that blows where it pleases. The life of the Spirit is one of freedom, wisdom, improvisation and creativity. It was for this reason that the early church was known as “The Way.”
Day 5: Contextualization – Seeing the Gospel in our own world
What about our culture? Where do we see God at work among our friends and family? And what do we call what we see? America is often called a Christian nation because of the ways Christianity has colored our historical narrative and infiltrated our power structures, but what is truly Christian about our culture even if it has another name?
“The active presence of God began on the day of creation. This active presence continues today over the whole world, within and without the Church. The church is therefore missioned not so much to introduce Christ to non-Christians as if he were a total stranger, but rather to help the non-Christian find him already present and active in the non-Christian heart.” (Louis Luzbetak)
Do we as western, white, middle class American Christians claim exclusive rights to the truth?
What does that truth look like and how do our monopolizing claims on it affect our orientation to other people groups?
How does our own view of the truth change if we encounter something true outside our own bubble?
We attempted to answer these questions by using words from other cultures laden with meaning to show that those cultures understand and live out the message of the gospel, even if they don’t know it. All cultures contain “neutral” or “naturally good” elements in non-Christian ways of life. These elements are often consistent with the Gospel message and serve as points of contact between otherwise dissimilar cultures and worldviews. In Other Words…God does not show favoritism but accepts all those who fear him and do what is right.
The following is a quick breakdown of the words and the theological implications that arise from their cultural context. Next week I will post an edited version of my sermon from day 3.
Day 1: Namaste – “In the image of God he created them”
Namaste is a combination of two Sanskrit words and is literally rendered “I bow to you” and understood to be an acknowledgment of the divine spark within each person. It is a traditional Hindu greeting in India that has become more popular around the globe (especially since its usage in the hit show “Lost”). The greeting is usually given with head bowed, palms pressed together and held close to the chest. It can be heard being exchanged by lepers in Calcutta.
The theological principle, imago Dei, is often affirmed and less often practiced by Christians. Our tendency to judge others by their appearance, health, or social standing splinters our globe, our culture, even our church. Jesus amazed and angered others by his willingness to affirm God’s image in all people through touch, presence, and healing. We too are called recognize to the image of God in others, be they beautiful and powerful or crippled and neglected.
Day 2: Ubuntu – “We are all members of one body”
A belief in ubuntu is prevalent throughout the African continent. It is a word with no English counterpart that is roughly translated “I am because you are.” Desmond Tutu credits a belief in ubuntu for the success of reconciliation movements in South Africa after the fall of apartheid. It’s a mindset that values forgiveness, hospitality, and compassion and challenges us to connect our livelihood with the livelihood of others.
Regardless of how we view one another, there are forces at work in our culture that make it difficult for us to live in community with people, even our friends. Individualism, materialism, and right of privacy all work counter to the desire Jesus articulated in his final prayer on earth. Forgiveness, transparency, and a genuine concern for the welfare of others are all needed to truly experience the community God desires.
Day 3: Solidariedade – Look not to your own interests but to the interests of others
Solidariedade is one of the most cherished values of Latin American culture. It has been defined as “helping others in an organized and effective way,” with no regard for one’s own wealth or poverty. Solidariedade surpasses our own English notions of compassion and care and approaches more closely Paul’s ideas of humility as expressed in Philippians 2.
The difference between solidariedade and our understandings of service in America are subtle. Service is a highly esteemed virtue, even in America’s mainstream culture, but it is often viewed as what we do for others after we have tended to ourselves. In our context to disregard our own needs is more often seen as a vice rather than a virtue. Solidariedade is not a possibility as much as it is a responsibility and a core value of Brazilian society.
Day 4: Tao – “I am the way, the truth and the life”
For over 2500 years the Tao has been a pivotal concept throughout much of China. Tao literally means path, or way. Tao refers both to the way of ultimate reality that is beyond human comprehension and the way or rhythm of the universe with which human life meshes.
Too often Christianity is consumed with keeping rules and memorizing facts, even though Jesus never displayed this obsession. Instead Jesus was (and is) concerned that his disciples follow and model the way of life that he pioneered, a way of life animated by the Spirit that blows where it pleases. The life of the Spirit is one of freedom, wisdom, improvisation and creativity. It was for this reason that the early church was known as “The Way.”
Day 5: Contextualization – Seeing the Gospel in our own world
What about our culture? Where do we see God at work among our friends and family? And what do we call what we see? America is often called a Christian nation because of the ways Christianity has colored our historical narrative and infiltrated our power structures, but what is truly Christian about our culture even if it has another name?
“The active presence of God began on the day of creation. This active presence continues today over the whole world, within and without the Church. The church is therefore missioned not so much to introduce Christ to non-Christians as if he were a total stranger, but rather to help the non-Christian find him already present and active in the non-Christian heart.” (Louis Luzbetak)
Friday, June 6, 2008
A Musical Find
I have been looking for a while now to find some new music that I like, and I found some although it is not exactly new.
Derek Webb is an on and off member of Caedmon's Call. He has reserved his more political music for his solo albums. I found them refreshing and reinvigorating.
Here are the lyrics from "A King & A Kingdom" from his Mockingbird album.
That's some good stuff. I am looking for other good music. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Derek Webb is an on and off member of Caedmon's Call. He has reserved his more political music for his solo albums. I found them refreshing and reinvigorating.
Here are the lyrics from "A King & A Kingdom" from his Mockingbird album.
(vs. 1)
who's your brother, who's your sister
you just walked passed him
i think you missed her
as we're all migrating to the place where our father lives
'cause we married in to a family of immigrants
(chorus)
my first allegiance is not to a flag, a country, or a man
my first allegiance is not to democracy or blood
it's to a king & a kingdom
(vs. 2)
there are two great lies that i’ve heard:
“the day you eat of the fruit of that tree, you will not surely die”
and that Jesus Christ was a white, middle-class republican
and if you wanna be saved you have to learn to be like Him
(chorus)
(bridge)
but nothing unifies like a common enemy
and we’ve got one, sure as hell
but he may be living in your house
he may be raising up your kids
he may be sleeping with your wife
oh no, he may not look like you think
That's some good stuff. I am looking for other good music. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Wedding Fretting
I have not been shy in voicing my displeasure toward doing weddings. My reasons are many and vary between noble and ignoble.
Let me list just two of them here: 1. The typical wedding is enormously expensive. This is considerably problematic when you think how poor* many young couples are when they start out, and how financial struggles threaten a marriage.
2. The ostentation that is a part of most weddings is hardly in keeping with the modesty and humility that we profess. Paul tells us that everything we do should be for God's glory. But a wedding is not His day, it's "her day".
I've been thinking about counseling people to elope. However, that does not promote community. It does nothing to guarantee that God's glory is even considered. And it may fail communicate what truly significant event the wedding is.
So I am trying to come up with ideas that will reflect the significance of the day while still glorifying God above all and preserving Christian modesty. It is a difficult thing to balance, becasue many of the things that signal the importance of the day are the same things which are most self-glorifying (expensive clothes, ceremonial entrances, etc...)
I'd like to see the processions tweaked, perhaps the attire too.
Perhaps we could start the ceremony with some simple reminders of who God and what he has done.
Perhaps the couple could speak some vows (together and/or as individuals) directly to God as well as to each other.
Encourage them to do a gift registry here.
Accepting ideas in the comments.
Let me list just two of them here: 1. The typical wedding is enormously expensive. This is considerably problematic when you think how poor* many young couples are when they start out, and how financial struggles threaten a marriage.2. The ostentation that is a part of most weddings is hardly in keeping with the modesty and humility that we profess. Paul tells us that everything we do should be for God's glory. But a wedding is not His day, it's "her day".
I've been thinking about counseling people to elope. However, that does not promote community. It does nothing to guarantee that God's glory is even considered. And it may fail communicate what truly significant event the wedding is.
So I am trying to come up with ideas that will reflect the significance of the day while still glorifying God above all and preserving Christian modesty. It is a difficult thing to balance, becasue many of the things that signal the importance of the day are the same things which are most self-glorifying (expensive clothes, ceremonial entrances, etc...)
I'd like to see the processions tweaked, perhaps the attire too.
Perhaps we could start the ceremony with some simple reminders of who God and what he has done.
Perhaps the couple could speak some vows (together and/or as individuals) directly to God as well as to each other.
Encourage them to do a gift registry here.
Accepting ideas in the comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
