I've been reading this book on "millenials", which are basically people who are currently in the age bracket of 20-45. We're called this quite obviously, because we were growing up around the turn of the millenium...Y2K, internet, september 11th, stuff like that are said to impact our lives and distinguish us from other generations such as the Baby Boomers of the 50-70s.
Why am I reading this book? Because I've recently found that generations are interesting. I used to think we were all pretty similar and that, as a 20 something, I'm supposed to just rebel and want to be different and then I will one day gain maturity and wisdom like my parents and grandparents. I used to understand life as a pretty linear concept in this regard. At the same time though, I've always had this strong conviction that there is more, that there are new things to be done and that rebellion and heterdoxy are not necessarily bad things. Then, as I started reading sociological surveys and psychological studies, I found that maybe it's true. Maybe different generations come along and accomplish different things. This would mean that not only am I justified in challenging norms and trying new methods, but that I should likewise see the previous generation's work as good and profitable, not out-dated and weak.
This realization gives me a whole new dimension in which to view God. God is a God who calls people into different generations to accomplish different things. God has specifically created me to live within this generation, to be influenced by these particular circumstances, to experience spirituality in new ways, so that I might continue the work of creating and restoring. God could have put me in the 1920's; I could have made a great Jazz musician. I could have been born in the middle ages. You get the idea. Point is, I'm here now and I'm learning, both spiritually and academically through these books, that God purposed this generation for something new. Not that we cut ties with previous ideas and methods, but that we embrace them and move.
Anyway, little tangent there. Here's what I really wanted to talk about.
This guy, Robert Wuthnow, says that we are (millenials) a generation of 'tinkerers'. Rather than going to the store and buying the exact part that is needed to complete a task, we will ask advice, use the skills we have and piece something together that is functional for our purposes. We thrive on an element of creativity, of ingenuity. Certainty is boring to us, the definitional nature is not enough. We want to tweek and tinker it to fit what makes rational, emotional and experiencial sense to us.
There is a bigger trend this comes from, which scholars call post-modernism. Quite simply post-modernism is re-modernism, in the sense that modernism is enlightentment-styled logic and formality. However, our tinkering generation has gone beyond the "norms" of post-modernism itself.
Take, for example, Sam Harris. He spoke a few months ago about science determining morality. He spoke against the post-modern view of relativity and subjectivity, the view that says "what's right for me is different than what's right for you." He claims that there are moral absolutes and that they can be found in biological and sociological scientific norms. So, it's not as simple as lumping our generation in with all the rest of post-modernism. Rather, our generation accepts things like an atheist claiming absolute morality.
Why? Why doth we tinker thus?
We tinker because we're able. Our generation gets married, finishes school, has kids, and starts a professional career decades later than previous generations. The ideal of an 18 yr old finishing college by 22, having a career by 24 and getting married by 26 is no longer the way of life. More likely is a single 28 yr old who is in school part time and works as a bartender. More likely is a single mom at 31, getting married around 35. This being said, the idea of "adulthood" has changed drastically. The coming of age that most people associate with the mid-20s, doesn't really occur until the late 30s or 40s. So, the first reason we tinker is because we make time for tinkering.
The second is that we don't have social pressures. Society focuses its efforts on youth and the elderly. Pre-school, grade school, aftercare, sports, youth group, parachurch ministries, on and on (I'm sure you can name 5 more, try)...all focused on the 5-18 age group. The same for elderly groups, communities, rotary clubs, boards, commissions, etc. So, the middle bracket of 20-50s are left out. And, this used to be ok. When people started families and professional careers in their 20s, there were plently of natural social networks in place to moniter and encourage the maturation and happiness of these age groups. But, with adulthood coming in one's late 30s, this is no longer a safe bet. Instead, young adults (again, 20-45) are left alone. We spend our time as individuals. We meet at clubs, online, we spend time with our parents...because, really, there isn't much else available. Not that these are bad sources of community, but they are not deep and intentional like those society provides for youth.
This is evidenced by statistics that show young adults deeply in-debt, raising kids alone, paying for chatrooms, etc. But, it does allow us to tinker. We don't have anyone telling us what is right and wrong, what we can and cannot think. We have no sources for wisdom, but also none for condemnation. So, we are free to tinker and create perspectives and worldviews, free to indulge what we choose and reject what we don't.
So, is tinkering a blessing or a curse? Is it good or bad? I guess I don't have a firm answer to that. Certainly we are fortunate on the one end in that we are not trapped by standards and ideals that act as fences and chains. But, on the other, we have no foundation, no community, no guidance. I think that, although there are positive effects to be had from this tinkering, society, specifically the church, needs to step up in respect and love of this age group and find ways to guide, commune with, and learn from us. I think there needs to be conversation between pastors, church leaders, elders...and young adults who hold these tinkering perspectives. Not a dialogue of wise one to foolish one, but of brother to brother, sister to sister. I think this not only for the church but for the society as a whole. Both sides need it, both sides will grow and be challenged as they engage in dialogue. Wouldn't it be beautiful if these young adults could be fostered and guided through the trials of adulthood by a loving community as they enrich it with the wisdom of a tinkerer. I think that society would stop stifeling tinkering such that all would feel free to tinker while remaining firmly grounded in wise truths and principles. Yea.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
Ignorance vs. Rebellion
What is the difference between ignorance and rebellion?
In our culture there seems to be more of a similarity than a difference. Ignorance is equated with some form of naive stupidity, "ignorant fool", and rebellion with a similar notion of naive defiance. Actually, I think, the only difference between the two is a level of respect that we hold for the rebel, who at least fights for his individuality and perspective, over and above the ignorant man who's blind to any kind truth or view.
Social constructs aside though, there is a strong difference between these two words. Ignorance, as we know, is actually lack of knowledge, which is different from stupidity or foolishness. For example, I am ignorant about the mechanics of rocket science. In fact, I know so little of the subject that the previous sentence probably doesn't even make good sense. Does this make me a fool? Does it make me stupid? No. Although so scientists may snub their noses at us non-educated folk, the lay ignorance of rocket science is not stupidity at all. Rather it is just immaturity in a specific subject, lack of illumination, of education. Rebellion, on the other hand, has to do with purposefully rejecting or revolting against a particular knowledge. Whether it be the rebel against government, societal norms, proper grammer, or against one's own friends and family. Rebellion may be characterized as purposeful ignorance, in that it is a type of ignorance and, in fact, it appears similar to plain old, garden variety ignorance, but it is an ignorance with agency and diliberation.
It may make sense, then, to fix the modern understanding of ignorance. It may serve us to view ignorance as a stance of humility and rebellion as pride. If this were the case, would we not have more regard and compassion for ignorance and more of a willingness to nurture and accept, rather than outcast and admonish? Might we even see the apparent rebellion in a person as possible ignorance, to the extent that we would not react in hatred or offense, but in understanding and love?
You may be wondering where this is going. Well, I'll show you. This is a bit of a long passage, but please read through it and meditate on it before moving past.
1 Timothy 1:5-15
The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and purjurers- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in IGNORANCE and UNBELIEF. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners- of whom I am the worst.
Forgive my interpretation of this if you think it flawed, but I see a dramatic paradigm shift here that needs to be accepted and revamped in the church and in society. How is it that we (the church and the entire culture) have become these "teachers of the law that don't know what we're talking about?" How have we become so elitist and condemning to see ignorance as a thing to be discriminated against and admonished? Especially within the church, we tend to treat everyone as a rebel, as if the "sin" that they are involved in is completely purposeful and curable by a slap on the wrist. What is Paul saying here?
I think he's saying, STOP. Stop holding people under this law as if they are not called righteous and faithful by thier God despite thier (and your) ignorance. Not that law and doctrine are not valid entities, though I would question the extent to which we use them today. But that law is for the "rebels". I hope you're catching what I'm throwing here, not that there isn't a serious sin problem in our hearts and not that we don't transgress God's law of perfection every single moment. BUT, that is not our identity. Our identity is, as Paul's was, "faithful". Paul thanks God that, despite his sin, God saw him as faithful. He thanked God for mercy shown to him in his ignorant sinfulness.
What if we did this? What if we stopped assuming rebellion in eachother (whether it's Christian to Christian or person to person) and started loving people in their ignorance....ESPECIALLY since we're in ignorance ourselves, since we don't have it all figured out and we certainly have our "bad days" where we are in ignorance to the very things we were so sure about a couple months ago. Praise God that he does not hold us to a law or creed or doctrine. Praise God that, when we come to him broken, he doesn't refer us to a list of "5 steps to recovery" or, worse, condemn us for our sin and turn us away. What does God see? God sees a broken and incomplete heart trying to place things in order, trying to gather the scattered pieces, in complete ignorance of how they go together. God sees ignorance, not rebellion. This is why he can call us beloved and not lawbreaker, son and not outcast, faithful and not wicked.
Again, for those with sensative ears, I'm not advocating a rejection of rebellion at all. No, rebellion exists. I rebel, you rebel, everyone rebels. Everyone does things they know are wrong. Rebellion is alive in our culture and in our church and it needs to be dealt with as Paul describes in other letters, lovingly and with great conviction. We need to be a holy people, because we serve a holy God and he calls us to be holy, to live up to our calling as sons and daughters. But, rebellion should not be the first and only thought. Rebellion should not be the form that all sin takes. Therefore, sin should not be treated, no matter the case, as a symptom to a rebellious heart. Sin should be treated gently and in complete love, having a great respect and hope for the person's good. Sin should be treated, first and foremost, as immaturity. Not the type of immaturity where we are "the mature ones" and the sinner is "the immature", but the type that has compassion (suffering with another).
My prayer for us, for the church and for culture, is that we would embrace eachother in humility and in a desire to see our lives illuminated and changed by the glorious love and character of God. I pray that we would not treat the sinner, the unbeliever, the doubter, the adulterer, the (you fill in the blank) as such, but as beloved, as fellow struggler, fellow beggar, as ignorant and not rebellious. That we would stop trying to fix people with our doctrine and law and, instead, love people where they're at and compassionately point them toward the Gospel of hope, of a God that redeems us in our sin and unfaithfulness.
So, don't get caught up in the meaningless talk, in the divisions and controversies, in the condemnation, in further damaging people who are already damaged. Instead, get caught up in restoration, in the celebration of a gloriously broken and redeemed creation and the God who loves it without measure. Get caught up in grace that sees ignorance and not rebellion, that sees love and not hate, that hungers for reconciliation not abomination. Love.
In our culture there seems to be more of a similarity than a difference. Ignorance is equated with some form of naive stupidity, "ignorant fool", and rebellion with a similar notion of naive defiance. Actually, I think, the only difference between the two is a level of respect that we hold for the rebel, who at least fights for his individuality and perspective, over and above the ignorant man who's blind to any kind truth or view.
Social constructs aside though, there is a strong difference between these two words. Ignorance, as we know, is actually lack of knowledge, which is different from stupidity or foolishness. For example, I am ignorant about the mechanics of rocket science. In fact, I know so little of the subject that the previous sentence probably doesn't even make good sense. Does this make me a fool? Does it make me stupid? No. Although so scientists may snub their noses at us non-educated folk, the lay ignorance of rocket science is not stupidity at all. Rather it is just immaturity in a specific subject, lack of illumination, of education. Rebellion, on the other hand, has to do with purposefully rejecting or revolting against a particular knowledge. Whether it be the rebel against government, societal norms, proper grammer, or against one's own friends and family. Rebellion may be characterized as purposeful ignorance, in that it is a type of ignorance and, in fact, it appears similar to plain old, garden variety ignorance, but it is an ignorance with agency and diliberation.
It may make sense, then, to fix the modern understanding of ignorance. It may serve us to view ignorance as a stance of humility and rebellion as pride. If this were the case, would we not have more regard and compassion for ignorance and more of a willingness to nurture and accept, rather than outcast and admonish? Might we even see the apparent rebellion in a person as possible ignorance, to the extent that we would not react in hatred or offense, but in understanding and love?
You may be wondering where this is going. Well, I'll show you. This is a bit of a long passage, but please read through it and meditate on it before moving past.
1 Timothy 1:5-15
The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and purjurers- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in IGNORANCE and UNBELIEF. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners- of whom I am the worst.
Forgive my interpretation of this if you think it flawed, but I see a dramatic paradigm shift here that needs to be accepted and revamped in the church and in society. How is it that we (the church and the entire culture) have become these "teachers of the law that don't know what we're talking about?" How have we become so elitist and condemning to see ignorance as a thing to be discriminated against and admonished? Especially within the church, we tend to treat everyone as a rebel, as if the "sin" that they are involved in is completely purposeful and curable by a slap on the wrist. What is Paul saying here?
I think he's saying, STOP. Stop holding people under this law as if they are not called righteous and faithful by thier God despite thier (and your) ignorance. Not that law and doctrine are not valid entities, though I would question the extent to which we use them today. But that law is for the "rebels". I hope you're catching what I'm throwing here, not that there isn't a serious sin problem in our hearts and not that we don't transgress God's law of perfection every single moment. BUT, that is not our identity. Our identity is, as Paul's was, "faithful". Paul thanks God that, despite his sin, God saw him as faithful. He thanked God for mercy shown to him in his ignorant sinfulness.
What if we did this? What if we stopped assuming rebellion in eachother (whether it's Christian to Christian or person to person) and started loving people in their ignorance....ESPECIALLY since we're in ignorance ourselves, since we don't have it all figured out and we certainly have our "bad days" where we are in ignorance to the very things we were so sure about a couple months ago. Praise God that he does not hold us to a law or creed or doctrine. Praise God that, when we come to him broken, he doesn't refer us to a list of "5 steps to recovery" or, worse, condemn us for our sin and turn us away. What does God see? God sees a broken and incomplete heart trying to place things in order, trying to gather the scattered pieces, in complete ignorance of how they go together. God sees ignorance, not rebellion. This is why he can call us beloved and not lawbreaker, son and not outcast, faithful and not wicked.
Again, for those with sensative ears, I'm not advocating a rejection of rebellion at all. No, rebellion exists. I rebel, you rebel, everyone rebels. Everyone does things they know are wrong. Rebellion is alive in our culture and in our church and it needs to be dealt with as Paul describes in other letters, lovingly and with great conviction. We need to be a holy people, because we serve a holy God and he calls us to be holy, to live up to our calling as sons and daughters. But, rebellion should not be the first and only thought. Rebellion should not be the form that all sin takes. Therefore, sin should not be treated, no matter the case, as a symptom to a rebellious heart. Sin should be treated gently and in complete love, having a great respect and hope for the person's good. Sin should be treated, first and foremost, as immaturity. Not the type of immaturity where we are "the mature ones" and the sinner is "the immature", but the type that has compassion (suffering with another).
My prayer for us, for the church and for culture, is that we would embrace eachother in humility and in a desire to see our lives illuminated and changed by the glorious love and character of God. I pray that we would not treat the sinner, the unbeliever, the doubter, the adulterer, the (you fill in the blank) as such, but as beloved, as fellow struggler, fellow beggar, as ignorant and not rebellious. That we would stop trying to fix people with our doctrine and law and, instead, love people where they're at and compassionately point them toward the Gospel of hope, of a God that redeems us in our sin and unfaithfulness.
So, don't get caught up in the meaningless talk, in the divisions and controversies, in the condemnation, in further damaging people who are already damaged. Instead, get caught up in restoration, in the celebration of a gloriously broken and redeemed creation and the God who loves it without measure. Get caught up in grace that sees ignorance and not rebellion, that sees love and not hate, that hungers for reconciliation not abomination. Love.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Prayer: The Vehicle for Christian Unity
I was reading through Thessalonians today and couldn't help but notice how often prayer appeared. Then, like a good college student, my next thought was to context. This brought me to see that prayer has some connection to community, to unity within the church. Ephesians seems to echo this refrain; be unified, love, be peaceful...pray without ceasing. What about the famous Acts 2, the starting point for many a church or christian community? What did the church do? They ate together, they gave to all who had need, and, well, they prayed. It says they went to the temple every day to pray and praise God together.
In fact, what about prayer FOR unity. How important is that? Well, the Lord's Prayer that is so often quoted as the "way to pray", has unity, forgiveness and love throughout. Then, there's Jesus' "prayer" in John 17. One of the few(2,3 maybe) times the Scriptures quote him praying...its saturated in a plea for unity and love for creation and, specifically, for the church. Paul prays for unity and peace in Romans, Timothy, Philippians...forget it, he ends and begins every letter with some form of plea for unity in the church. And, although this post is mainly about Christian scriptures, these themes run the length of the Jewish Bible as well.
I've had the joy of seeing this idea in practice here at New College. At other schools, where the numbers are in the thousands, there may be various clubs for each sect of Christianity. But, here at New College, because the Christians make up about 5-7% of a 800 student population, ecumenicalism is nearly forced (blessed) upon us. In a room full of baptists, pentacostals, presbyterians, catholics, episcopalians, lutherens, methodists, and probably 3-4 more that I'm missing...there is a beautiful union in prayer. Certainly we have different ideas about how God works exactly and how the church is supposed to function, we find in prayer that we actually hold pretty similar beliefs. Whether it's a Hail-Mary, a recited prayer from a hymnal, speaking in tongues, or a simple hallelujah uttered...we're all praying to the same glorious God, needing God's love and desiring that he work in us as the church.
Prayer is the language of ecumenical unity. Might we all pray more and plan less. Might we all embrace eachother. Might we set our eyes on Christ. That difference may be celebrated, but overshadowed by glorious unification. That intellectual dissent would not distort spiritual solidarity.
In fact, what about prayer FOR unity. How important is that? Well, the Lord's Prayer that is so often quoted as the "way to pray", has unity, forgiveness and love throughout. Then, there's Jesus' "prayer" in John 17. One of the few(2,3 maybe) times the Scriptures quote him praying...its saturated in a plea for unity and love for creation and, specifically, for the church. Paul prays for unity and peace in Romans, Timothy, Philippians...forget it, he ends and begins every letter with some form of plea for unity in the church. And, although this post is mainly about Christian scriptures, these themes run the length of the Jewish Bible as well.
I've had the joy of seeing this idea in practice here at New College. At other schools, where the numbers are in the thousands, there may be various clubs for each sect of Christianity. But, here at New College, because the Christians make up about 5-7% of a 800 student population, ecumenicalism is nearly forced (blessed) upon us. In a room full of baptists, pentacostals, presbyterians, catholics, episcopalians, lutherens, methodists, and probably 3-4 more that I'm missing...there is a beautiful union in prayer. Certainly we have different ideas about how God works exactly and how the church is supposed to function, we find in prayer that we actually hold pretty similar beliefs. Whether it's a Hail-Mary, a recited prayer from a hymnal, speaking in tongues, or a simple hallelujah uttered...we're all praying to the same glorious God, needing God's love and desiring that he work in us as the church.
Prayer is the language of ecumenical unity. Might we all pray more and plan less. Might we all embrace eachother. Might we set our eyes on Christ. That difference may be celebrated, but overshadowed by glorious unification. That intellectual dissent would not distort spiritual solidarity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)