how does a person define success? sometimes it is winning an argument (speaking personally), sometimes it is being right (again guilty), sometimes it is being well-liked by everyone, sometimes it is being disliked by everyone, sometimes it is growing a large church, sometimes it is doing everything yourself. some value money, some value pride, some value popularity. the question we have to ask, as the church is in a huge paradigm shift, is; how will we define success?
for previous generations it was no doubt the mega church. for some during the same time it was being so counter-cultural that they would never be a mega church.
i would define success for us during this shift in much the same way leonard sweet defined it while he was here a few weeks ago lecturing. we must leave behind the extraneous things, those things that have become cumbersome, those things that are not enhancing or developing anyone's personal relationship with christ jesus. we must remember our task as the church, and that is to win as many as possible.
we cannot win them in the masses, but in the individual. i have a great friend now, he started as just a coworker. when he first started working with me his life was a mess. but somewhere on the way god broke into his life again, reminded him that he was a beloved child, and helped him back onto the journey of life.
each of us needs that reminder. we need someone in our community to speak words of value into our lives, or to show that we are valuable by spending time, or money, or energy. this happens in community. if people are outside of the community, but can then be incorporated in, it opens them to hear the words of value that god wants to speak to them. we can only be available, we cannot make someone hear, and we cannot make our numbers increase, but success should be defined by reminding people of their value, value that the enemy wants desperately to strip them of, to discourage, and to kill. i think that is success.
4.17.2007
interesting quote...
on the emergent church that i read this week. i have received two emails of the same thing, but it is essentially a newsletter from jerry falwell. one of the accusations against the emergent church, at least in this newsletter, is that they (we) wish to "reanalyze the bible against the context into which it was written." god forbid.
this is one of the basic tenets of biblical hermeneutics. one of the primary goals is to attempt to find what the original meaning was to the original author, the original audience and only then can we take it and ask what it can mean to us today. it was not written in 2000, for us to understand in our context, the bible is a product of antiquity, and so there are indeed some things that do not make sense out of that context. it is the most phenomenal book ever assembled, it still speaks so much into our context today, but it still has an original meaning, and we would do well to try to find it.
there are many legitimate concerns about the emergent church, many problems and issues that we will face, what church doesnt? but if being accused of trying to find the original context of the bible is one of the worst things leveled against us, i think i can deal with that.
this is one of the basic tenets of biblical hermeneutics. one of the primary goals is to attempt to find what the original meaning was to the original author, the original audience and only then can we take it and ask what it can mean to us today. it was not written in 2000, for us to understand in our context, the bible is a product of antiquity, and so there are indeed some things that do not make sense out of that context. it is the most phenomenal book ever assembled, it still speaks so much into our context today, but it still has an original meaning, and we would do well to try to find it.
there are many legitimate concerns about the emergent church, many problems and issues that we will face, what church doesnt? but if being accused of trying to find the original context of the bible is one of the worst things leveled against us, i think i can deal with that.
4.10.2007
community
robert webber says that community is the new apologetic. he claims that no longer do we need to have some sort of argument that "proves" that christianity is right, but now people will believe if they are a part of the community of faith, if they belong before they become.
so what does this mean to us today? i would say that this has probably always held true. i have heard it is easier to change what a person believes than what a person values. when did those cease to be intrinsically related? i think the problem is that for a long time we tried to change beliefs first, then believed that values would follow. they of course, should follow, but they didnt. if people made a confession of faith, they would then go on to not change a single thing about their lifestyle.
however, if someone got so involved in a community, if someone is loved, cherished, treasured because they are a part of god's creation, if they knew they were missed when they missed, that they missed the small talk, the large talk, the heavy talk, the breaking of bread and the community learning, if they began to value that community, would they not begin to believe that jesus is true? of course, belief and value should be intimately related, but in our strange world they are often not.
so when robert webber says that community is the new apologetic. what he is saying is we should help people connect. help people realize that there is a chance to participate in something much larger than themselves. we should cease to be so dogmatic about the way we think the bible should be interpreted, and help people to come to those truths as they are participating in the body of christ. after all, our savior had a bunch of fumbling, useless disciples that clearly misunderstood the messianic purpose, but they changed their perspective because they belonged to eachother. but what do i know, i dont belong to a dogmatic group. so my values may be a bit different...
so what does this mean to us today? i would say that this has probably always held true. i have heard it is easier to change what a person believes than what a person values. when did those cease to be intrinsically related? i think the problem is that for a long time we tried to change beliefs first, then believed that values would follow. they of course, should follow, but they didnt. if people made a confession of faith, they would then go on to not change a single thing about their lifestyle.
however, if someone got so involved in a community, if someone is loved, cherished, treasured because they are a part of god's creation, if they knew they were missed when they missed, that they missed the small talk, the large talk, the heavy talk, the breaking of bread and the community learning, if they began to value that community, would they not begin to believe that jesus is true? of course, belief and value should be intimately related, but in our strange world they are often not.
so when robert webber says that community is the new apologetic. what he is saying is we should help people connect. help people realize that there is a chance to participate in something much larger than themselves. we should cease to be so dogmatic about the way we think the bible should be interpreted, and help people to come to those truths as they are participating in the body of christ. after all, our savior had a bunch of fumbling, useless disciples that clearly misunderstood the messianic purpose, but they changed their perspective because they belonged to eachother. but what do i know, i dont belong to a dogmatic group. so my values may be a bit different...
4.03.2007
the nature of truth
"there are things we can know absolutely and objectively."
this is a statement rejected by most of the postmodern world. why is this so difficult for those of us that are postmodern? i guess you could start with the definitions of the words "absolute" and "objective."
"absolute" as a noun is defined- a) something that is free from any condition or restriction--- b) something that is independant of some or all relations--- c)something that is perfect or complete or d) something that is not dependent upon external conditions for its existence or for its specific nature, size, etc.
as an adjective a) not mixed or adulterated--- b) free from restriction or limitation--- c) viewed independently, not relative or comparative--- d) positive, certain.
"objective" a) not being influenced by personal feelings, interpretations or prejudice--- b) intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind
now, the difficulty here is that some definitions for these words are very acceptable. and, indeed, when having a discussion with someone, they very often switch their personal definitions of these words at will without even consciously acknowledging it. for example, someone will say that something is "absolute" such as, "it is absolutely wrong to rape." in one sense, this is true. "it is positively wrong to rape." however, if one said, "it is free from condition or restriction wrong to rape," you have inherently contradicted yourself within your sentence. the word "rape" is a conditional word. it means "forced sex" so there is within the word a condition or restriction. so this absolute statement in that sense is very relative. and so it goes.
now the difficulty is that most do not realize the definitions that they use. they try to oversimplify their language so that things are easier to grasp, easier to understand, less of a struggle. but in fact it is the struggle that improves us as people. the struggle is the very thing that draws us closer to the heart of god. when we acknowledge that we cannot figure it all out, that we cannot reduce the world to "absolute" statements, we are admitting our own limitations. indeed, it almost sets us on the level of the creator to believe that we can in fact know things "absolutely" because we are very much not "perfect or complete."
"objective." it is very much possible to know something as an object. i see my laptop. i see the coke machine in front of me. those are objects. however, to know something "objectively" is very different. is the coke machine that i see the same as the one that a man with colorblindness sees? in a way, but in a way, it is completely different. it is impossible for us to be "objective" in regards to truth, because we ourselves are never objective. i can only see the world through my eyes, with my brain, feel it with my hands, smell it with my nose. the only past experiences i have to draw on are my own. i can indeed, hear of another's past experience, but that is only heard through my personal ears, then filtered through my brain, by way of my past experience with the world and how it works. so, when one speaks of being "objective" it is a great thing to strive for, but something completely unattainable.
as a postmodern, i reject things like certainty, because i am not sure how i can be certain. i can be pretty sure, but as long as i live from a flawed flesh, how can i trust it? or in another way, if i could be so certain that god was god, that jesus loved me, where would faith come in? if i could be completely certain that my wife would never leave me, which i am fairly certain, why would i ever have to trust her? indeed, we would never have to risk if we could be so certain. and indeed, it is very natural to not want to risk. however, it is necessary. we must stake all we have on the promises of jesus, on the hope that he was telling the truth that he will in fact return to redeem us fully, because if we could be certain, we would not require faith or trust.
then again, i could be wrong. i do question certainty.
this is a statement rejected by most of the postmodern world. why is this so difficult for those of us that are postmodern? i guess you could start with the definitions of the words "absolute" and "objective."
"absolute" as a noun is defined- a) something that is free from any condition or restriction--- b) something that is independant of some or all relations--- c)something that is perfect or complete or d) something that is not dependent upon external conditions for its existence or for its specific nature, size, etc.
as an adjective a) not mixed or adulterated--- b) free from restriction or limitation--- c) viewed independently, not relative or comparative--- d) positive, certain.
"objective" a) not being influenced by personal feelings, interpretations or prejudice--- b) intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind
now, the difficulty here is that some definitions for these words are very acceptable. and, indeed, when having a discussion with someone, they very often switch their personal definitions of these words at will without even consciously acknowledging it. for example, someone will say that something is "absolute" such as, "it is absolutely wrong to rape." in one sense, this is true. "it is positively wrong to rape." however, if one said, "it is free from condition or restriction wrong to rape," you have inherently contradicted yourself within your sentence. the word "rape" is a conditional word. it means "forced sex" so there is within the word a condition or restriction. so this absolute statement in that sense is very relative. and so it goes.
now the difficulty is that most do not realize the definitions that they use. they try to oversimplify their language so that things are easier to grasp, easier to understand, less of a struggle. but in fact it is the struggle that improves us as people. the struggle is the very thing that draws us closer to the heart of god. when we acknowledge that we cannot figure it all out, that we cannot reduce the world to "absolute" statements, we are admitting our own limitations. indeed, it almost sets us on the level of the creator to believe that we can in fact know things "absolutely" because we are very much not "perfect or complete."
"objective." it is very much possible to know something as an object. i see my laptop. i see the coke machine in front of me. those are objects. however, to know something "objectively" is very different. is the coke machine that i see the same as the one that a man with colorblindness sees? in a way, but in a way, it is completely different. it is impossible for us to be "objective" in regards to truth, because we ourselves are never objective. i can only see the world through my eyes, with my brain, feel it with my hands, smell it with my nose. the only past experiences i have to draw on are my own. i can indeed, hear of another's past experience, but that is only heard through my personal ears, then filtered through my brain, by way of my past experience with the world and how it works. so, when one speaks of being "objective" it is a great thing to strive for, but something completely unattainable.
as a postmodern, i reject things like certainty, because i am not sure how i can be certain. i can be pretty sure, but as long as i live from a flawed flesh, how can i trust it? or in another way, if i could be so certain that god was god, that jesus loved me, where would faith come in? if i could be completely certain that my wife would never leave me, which i am fairly certain, why would i ever have to trust her? indeed, we would never have to risk if we could be so certain. and indeed, it is very natural to not want to risk. however, it is necessary. we must stake all we have on the promises of jesus, on the hope that he was telling the truth that he will in fact return to redeem us fully, because if we could be certain, we would not require faith or trust.
then again, i could be wrong. i do question certainty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
