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.
3.27.2007
the infallibility of scripture
"if any part of it is untrue, then the whole thing is untrustworthy, we cannot believe any of it"
this is frequently the argument i hear of the infallibility of scripture. there are quite a few things wrong with this argument.
1. there are parts of the bible that contradict one another. in the simple story of the woman annointing jesus with her costly perfume. each of the gospels records this particular event, however none is exactly the same. this either means that there were four accounts, or some of the details in some of the accounts are wrong. if there were four events, then there is not much of a problem, however, i have read zero commentaries that truly believe that. in fact most believe that there were two events. the details got somewhat confused, but the majority of scholars believe that john, mark and matthew record one event, while luke speaks of another. so then there must be some error in that not all the details corroborate.
2. this argument is never used with things such as science books. i would guess that 95% or more of the current science text books speak of pluto as a planet. guess we better throw out the part about gravity too then huh? there are parts of the bible that speak of the "four corners of the earth" there was a prevalant belief up until, i believe, the 1400s that the earth was flat. seems as if the writers of the bible agreed. guess we had better throw the whole thing out huh?
3. this really depends on definitions. we have a different definition of truth that those that wrote the bible. many times we define truth from a modern mindset, that is concrete, and scientific. however, when the hebrews would write something and use numbers, they would often not use the actual number, they would use a number that was symbolic. they would be saying something much more than at the surface level. they were no symply prone to hyperbole, which they were, they were also prone to use numbers that meant something else to them. 12 for example, symbolized god's people. so when john wrote that 144,000 people would be saved in revelation, he probably just meant that all god's people would be saved. not that people would have to take a number, and if theirs was greater than 144,000, might as well step out of line and go home.
these are just some of the reasons i think that argument is funny. these people have missed the purpose of scripture. it is the written account of god's revelation. no more, no less. it is divinely inspired, but not as a history book or a science book. those things are unimportant to its message. we should not expect it to do something for which it was not intended.
what if the world was created millions of years ago, and god used evolution to create man, would that make him any less god? no, but it would cause a lot of us to reevaluate the expectations we put on the bible. it would cause difficulty for moderns, who expect the writers of the bible to know things about science that were not discovered for 3 or 4 thousand years after they wrote. does that mean god didnt understand them? of course not, but how could he possible explain gravity to a people who had a hard enough time figuring out that the earth was round?
the bible is a wonderful gift from god, but lets not try to make it into something it is not, and that is a science book, or a history book. it is a religious book, it tells truth of how we can know god, how much god cares for us, how god has worked in his people in the past. moderns...
this is frequently the argument i hear of the infallibility of scripture. there are quite a few things wrong with this argument.
1. there are parts of the bible that contradict one another. in the simple story of the woman annointing jesus with her costly perfume. each of the gospels records this particular event, however none is exactly the same. this either means that there were four accounts, or some of the details in some of the accounts are wrong. if there were four events, then there is not much of a problem, however, i have read zero commentaries that truly believe that. in fact most believe that there were two events. the details got somewhat confused, but the majority of scholars believe that john, mark and matthew record one event, while luke speaks of another. so then there must be some error in that not all the details corroborate.
2. this argument is never used with things such as science books. i would guess that 95% or more of the current science text books speak of pluto as a planet. guess we better throw out the part about gravity too then huh? there are parts of the bible that speak of the "four corners of the earth" there was a prevalant belief up until, i believe, the 1400s that the earth was flat. seems as if the writers of the bible agreed. guess we had better throw the whole thing out huh?
3. this really depends on definitions. we have a different definition of truth that those that wrote the bible. many times we define truth from a modern mindset, that is concrete, and scientific. however, when the hebrews would write something and use numbers, they would often not use the actual number, they would use a number that was symbolic. they would be saying something much more than at the surface level. they were no symply prone to hyperbole, which they were, they were also prone to use numbers that meant something else to them. 12 for example, symbolized god's people. so when john wrote that 144,000 people would be saved in revelation, he probably just meant that all god's people would be saved. not that people would have to take a number, and if theirs was greater than 144,000, might as well step out of line and go home.
these are just some of the reasons i think that argument is funny. these people have missed the purpose of scripture. it is the written account of god's revelation. no more, no less. it is divinely inspired, but not as a history book or a science book. those things are unimportant to its message. we should not expect it to do something for which it was not intended.
what if the world was created millions of years ago, and god used evolution to create man, would that make him any less god? no, but it would cause a lot of us to reevaluate the expectations we put on the bible. it would cause difficulty for moderns, who expect the writers of the bible to know things about science that were not discovered for 3 or 4 thousand years after they wrote. does that mean god didnt understand them? of course not, but how could he possible explain gravity to a people who had a hard enough time figuring out that the earth was round?
the bible is a wonderful gift from god, but lets not try to make it into something it is not, and that is a science book, or a history book. it is a religious book, it tells truth of how we can know god, how much god cares for us, how god has worked in his people in the past. moderns...
3.20.2007
hot chocolate
this past week i had the opportunity to help some people in NYC. one of the jobs we did was to help a portable soup kitchen. they had renovated an old school bus, turned it into a soup kitchen on wheels. they would pull up and just give away soup, bread and hot chocolate. these people were regulars. the guys that worked the bus knew several of them.
one man was named tony. tony was drunk, and high. he looked on the verge of collapse. steve, who worked regularly at the soup kitchen, pulled me over and pointed to a crack in the wall. "that is where tony lives," he said. tony used to be a cop, but then 9/11 happened and he fell apart. tony was so hurt by the massive loss of life, the massive pain he felt, he turned to heroine and alcohol. tony barely knows who he is now. this is one of casualties of the spiritual war going on around us. hearing about tony was the low point in my day. what good is there in such suffering?
an hour or so later, we were almost out of hot chocolate. i handed out the last full cup. and as i did so, another man walked up and wanted some. "sorry sir, we're out." the man was very disappointed. then something wonderful happened. the man that got the last cup poured half of his hot chocolate into another cup and shared. this man had nothing, he was homeless himself, he had every reason to horde and to take all he could, but he in his poverty shared.
there is much to hurt about in the world, and each of us is in pain, but the grace of god is that we can share the bountiful goodness of him. we in our poverty can share the free gift god has given us. there is no law against this.
one man was named tony. tony was drunk, and high. he looked on the verge of collapse. steve, who worked regularly at the soup kitchen, pulled me over and pointed to a crack in the wall. "that is where tony lives," he said. tony used to be a cop, but then 9/11 happened and he fell apart. tony was so hurt by the massive loss of life, the massive pain he felt, he turned to heroine and alcohol. tony barely knows who he is now. this is one of casualties of the spiritual war going on around us. hearing about tony was the low point in my day. what good is there in such suffering?
an hour or so later, we were almost out of hot chocolate. i handed out the last full cup. and as i did so, another man walked up and wanted some. "sorry sir, we're out." the man was very disappointed. then something wonderful happened. the man that got the last cup poured half of his hot chocolate into another cup and shared. this man had nothing, he was homeless himself, he had every reason to horde and to take all he could, but he in his poverty shared.
there is much to hurt about in the world, and each of us is in pain, but the grace of god is that we can share the bountiful goodness of him. we in our poverty can share the free gift god has given us. there is no law against this.
3.14.2007
"in christ"
i have recently been contemplating what it means for someone to sign something "in christ." what are the ramifications of that? what does this mean to the people that read that particular signature? what responsibility does it carry?
it is funny to me that people will wear a shirt that says "jesus loves you" but at the same time proclaim with their sign that "god hates fags." i have a hard time reconciling those two statements. there seems to be some sort of disconnect between our actions and our speech.
seems like jesus faced the same issues. which is why he said things like, "if you claim to be in me, you must walk as i do." "is it possible to have both good and bad water come from the same fountain?" james asks. so is it really possible to claim with a bumper sticker that "jesus saves" while at the same time proclaiming that the person behind you is worthy of the one finger salute?
i guess that begs the question. is it possible to fill a message or a blog with all sort of condescention and derision then to sign it "in christ" believing that makes it ok?
the obvious argument is that these people are being corrected, so since jesus stands for truth should we not correct them? i guess i look at the instance of the woman caught in adultery for that. jesus is anything but harsh with her. he is anything but harsh with peter later. i have hard time believing that people can be corrected in their doctrine by someone who corrects them in a very unchristlike way.
i guess maybe we should just all evaluate a little better what we wear, what we put on our bumpers, how we sign blogs and emails. we should represent the one we claim to represent, with actions before words.
in the flesh.
chris
it is funny to me that people will wear a shirt that says "jesus loves you" but at the same time proclaim with their sign that "god hates fags." i have a hard time reconciling those two statements. there seems to be some sort of disconnect between our actions and our speech.
seems like jesus faced the same issues. which is why he said things like, "if you claim to be in me, you must walk as i do." "is it possible to have both good and bad water come from the same fountain?" james asks. so is it really possible to claim with a bumper sticker that "jesus saves" while at the same time proclaiming that the person behind you is worthy of the one finger salute?
i guess that begs the question. is it possible to fill a message or a blog with all sort of condescention and derision then to sign it "in christ" believing that makes it ok?
the obvious argument is that these people are being corrected, so since jesus stands for truth should we not correct them? i guess i look at the instance of the woman caught in adultery for that. jesus is anything but harsh with her. he is anything but harsh with peter later. i have hard time believing that people can be corrected in their doctrine by someone who corrects them in a very unchristlike way.
i guess maybe we should just all evaluate a little better what we wear, what we put on our bumpers, how we sign blogs and emails. we should represent the one we claim to represent, with actions before words.
in the flesh.
chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
