you have an existential experience every time the power goes out.
Just wanted to relay that truth from my own reflection on said experiences, including the 5 minute power-outage at my restaurant last night.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Born Again?
Nichodemus said "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
- John 3.2-3
This little dialogue goes on to talk about what it means to be "Born of the Spirit", to be born again. What does this mean?
In the church (in general), we take it to refer to that Moment when a person first turns their attention to Jesus and makes a decision, whether it be by altar call or tract or personal conversation, to "give their lives to Jesus" or "get saved." I think this comes from a desire to see salvation as a secure decision.
If salvation is a momentary decision, then we can know "beyond a shadow of doubt that we'll go to heaven when we die." We can, further, understand the faiths of others and help guide them to that moment for themselves.
But, what if this isn't what Jesus meant? What if Jesus was talking about this being "born again" as a process in which a person changes his/her entire lifestyle, entire reality, entire way of thinking of themselves and others? What if Jesus was talking about a new set of eyes and ears, a new method of perceiving everything, a completely new personhood? What if being born again is that conflict that Paul talks about in Romans, where flesh fights against spirit, where the old person is constantly at war with the new?
Or, maybe Jesus is talking about birth itself, the process from conception, through all the phases of the fetus, to baby. What if Jesus is referring to re-birth as a development? What if he's referring to the common ideal of birth in which it takes 9 months, proper nutrition, much turmoil, etc. to produce a new being?
This makes me think of theology (duh..right?). It makes me think of a "first birth" as our birth in Adam (and Eve), as God's image bearers, as perfect crown of creation. However, as Scripture reads, there was then a Fall, a crisis that, in essence, killed the original creation; as God promised "if you eat of this fruit, you will surely die." So, if we are dead, then we must be reborn.
But, when does this re-birth, this being "born again" occur? Is it after a short prayer, after accepting some doctrinal truths, once we make an initial decision to seek after God? If our first birth was into perfection, then the new birth should follow suit. If this is the case, then I have not truly, fully been "born again." Certainly I am growing. God is nourishing me and I'm forming into the man he once created (Adam), I'm learning how to view reality as it truly is, learning how to have an interactive relationship with God.
But, have I yet been born? Or will I one day see "then" in full what I see "now" in shadows and glimpses? Will I one day know fully, as compared to my current state of partial knowledge? Should I, then, be seeking the position of "born again" or the process? Should I be seeking a deeper security or a closer sync with the re-birth perspective?
Can I both live in the "kingdom of God", the "fullness of life" that Jesus promises is here, at hand, and remain unfinished or still unborn to the "born again" identity?
In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
- John 3.2-3
This little dialogue goes on to talk about what it means to be "Born of the Spirit", to be born again. What does this mean?
In the church (in general), we take it to refer to that Moment when a person first turns their attention to Jesus and makes a decision, whether it be by altar call or tract or personal conversation, to "give their lives to Jesus" or "get saved." I think this comes from a desire to see salvation as a secure decision.
If salvation is a momentary decision, then we can know "beyond a shadow of doubt that we'll go to heaven when we die." We can, further, understand the faiths of others and help guide them to that moment for themselves.
But, what if this isn't what Jesus meant? What if Jesus was talking about this being "born again" as a process in which a person changes his/her entire lifestyle, entire reality, entire way of thinking of themselves and others? What if Jesus was talking about a new set of eyes and ears, a new method of perceiving everything, a completely new personhood? What if being born again is that conflict that Paul talks about in Romans, where flesh fights against spirit, where the old person is constantly at war with the new?
Or, maybe Jesus is talking about birth itself, the process from conception, through all the phases of the fetus, to baby. What if Jesus is referring to re-birth as a development? What if he's referring to the common ideal of birth in which it takes 9 months, proper nutrition, much turmoil, etc. to produce a new being?
This makes me think of theology (duh..right?). It makes me think of a "first birth" as our birth in Adam (and Eve), as God's image bearers, as perfect crown of creation. However, as Scripture reads, there was then a Fall, a crisis that, in essence, killed the original creation; as God promised "if you eat of this fruit, you will surely die." So, if we are dead, then we must be reborn.
But, when does this re-birth, this being "born again" occur? Is it after a short prayer, after accepting some doctrinal truths, once we make an initial decision to seek after God? If our first birth was into perfection, then the new birth should follow suit. If this is the case, then I have not truly, fully been "born again." Certainly I am growing. God is nourishing me and I'm forming into the man he once created (Adam), I'm learning how to view reality as it truly is, learning how to have an interactive relationship with God.
But, have I yet been born? Or will I one day see "then" in full what I see "now" in shadows and glimpses? Will I one day know fully, as compared to my current state of partial knowledge? Should I, then, be seeking the position of "born again" or the process? Should I be seeking a deeper security or a closer sync with the re-birth perspective?
Can I both live in the "kingdom of God", the "fullness of life" that Jesus promises is here, at hand, and remain unfinished or still unborn to the "born again" identity?
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Book of Life
So, I was reading in Revelation last night...you know, like people do...and I noticed the phrase "blot you out of the Book of Life". In this case, Jesus was saying that he wouldn't blot out the faithful ones. Nevertheless, I started wondering about this whole Book of Life business. I proceeded to look up (on Google, of course) the several other places where "Book of LIfe" is mentioned and found a similar tone throughout the Scriptures. So, this is what I'm thinking:
If Christ is blotting out names at the end of days, when he's coming to judge the world, then that would tell me all names are in this Book and some are removed for different reasons. In other words, it's not as though this eternal book was written outside of time with only the names of certain people that would remain in the Book forever. If this is the case, if everyone is written in the Book, couldn't it also be the case that Christ truly did die for everyone and that God truly does want everyone to come to Himself? Can this logic co-exist with Reform doctrine? In other words, can God still be a calling, predestining God while maintaining an incomplete Book of Life? I think so. I certainly can't explain how, but I think so.
I mean back in the day with the golden calf ordeal, God pretty straightly says that disobedience equals death...and proceeded to kill people. Then we learn through the eyes of Christ that the death was ultimately a spiritual one. So, sinners are, then, as in Exodus, blotted out of the Book of LIfe. But Christ's justifying death, once and for all (for all people?) allows us to maintain a stance in the Book of Life despite sin.
Anybody have an opinion on all this? I welcome any thoughts.
If Christ is blotting out names at the end of days, when he's coming to judge the world, then that would tell me all names are in this Book and some are removed for different reasons. In other words, it's not as though this eternal book was written outside of time with only the names of certain people that would remain in the Book forever. If this is the case, if everyone is written in the Book, couldn't it also be the case that Christ truly did die for everyone and that God truly does want everyone to come to Himself? Can this logic co-exist with Reform doctrine? In other words, can God still be a calling, predestining God while maintaining an incomplete Book of Life? I think so. I certainly can't explain how, but I think so.
I mean back in the day with the golden calf ordeal, God pretty straightly says that disobedience equals death...and proceeded to kill people. Then we learn through the eyes of Christ that the death was ultimately a spiritual one. So, sinners are, then, as in Exodus, blotted out of the Book of LIfe. But Christ's justifying death, once and for all (for all people?) allows us to maintain a stance in the Book of Life despite sin.
Anybody have an opinion on all this? I welcome any thoughts.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Bread and Wine = Jesus
I'm in line waiting for food. The people that surround me either wear somber faces or dramatic smiles. Both symbolize their response to this act of communion. The somber face indicates a regret and conviction of sin and a sorrowful remebrance of a bleeding savior. The smile indicates a joy of salvation, a joy that such a man died for sin many years ago so that the masses may live in freedom and family with God. As I step up for my turn in line, the men distributing the foodstuffs whisper "body of Christ broken for you, blood of Christ spilled for you" in an eerily serious tone. As I return to my seat, I try hard to understand this truth and to love God better because of it. I try to thank God, to admit wrongdoings, to...form some sort of makeshift meaning.
The preacher tries to help me understand this meaning. He recites passages from Corinthians and Mark, he explains that I am to remember Jesus. He sometimes uses historical symbols to reveal the meaning of the bread and the wine. He then proceeds to guide me through the consumption of these foods through prayer and scripture.
But, I still don't understand. I'm stumped...and a little wigged out by the whole thing. I feel as though the whole thing is forced, as if I'm not truly making contact with God but rather just simply eating with a strange ritual attached. Plus, after skipping breakfast this morning, I'd really rather eat a steak instead of a thimble of cheap wine and a mouse-portion of bread. So, it's not even really eating either.
And, honestly, as I plan to be a pastor, I'm wondering how I can continue this necessary, mandated-by-Scripture practice when I can't seem to muster up any kind of authentic feeling or appreciation.
It got me thinking about Catholics. Catholics get so much out of the stinking Eucharist, its like the bread and butter (no pun intended) of the ecclesiastical structure. What does Catholocism teach regarding the Eucharist? Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't know much (because I've grown up in a protestant church) but I do know that there's this word, Transubstantiation. In my understanding, transubstantiation is the "process" by which simple bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ. Not that the bread and wine take the form of body and blood, but that they are, by the Priest's blessing, acting "en persona Christi".
I believe this practice comes from (well many places, but primarily) John 6. In John 6:32-60 or so, Jesus talks about himself being the Bread of Life. Shortly after Jesus "feeds the 5 thousand", some of them find him and ask him to perform more signs and miracles to show that he truly is God. They say "like Moses, you know, God gave him bread in the desert so that the Israelites could live" and Jesus goes "woah woah woah now, you don't get it...I AM the bread of life, I'm the only bread you'll ever need...that bread in the desert was purely physical...I'm the bread that doesn't spoil, that can't be devoured, that fully and eternally satisfies the soul." Then he says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
So, what he's saying is...unless you drink me, eat me...you got nothing. Now, I believe, Catholocism practices the Eucharist (a tradition passed down from the church fathers) by saying, "we're gonna take this bread and wine and ingest it as the body and blood of Christ because apart from Him there is no eternal life, no salvation, no nothin". And so, literally, Catholics partake in the ritual, acknowledging that without it there is nothing good in their own mortal bodies to bring about the righteousness that God requires.
But, what about a figurative interpretation? Is it possible? I believe so. Now, I'm not arguing "figurative vs. literal" because I'm just not qualified to do so. What I am saying is that IF we are going to participate in a figurative interpretation, we may want to heed these verses.
What I see in these verses, what I see in Communion, is a symbolic acknowledgement of the whole gospel. Not just the cross, not just the death of Christ...but the whole package, that the death and ressurection of Christ means that we are called chosen and beloved, means that we are called righteous because of Him. We are no longer dependent upon our own nature to live righteously, but rather upon Christ and his perfect nature. So, when Christ says "I am the Bread of Life, unless you eat it you're dead and can't truly live", I think he's talking about Communion. I think he's alluding to this future "last supper" act, and I think the words in these verses directly mirror those found in Luke 22 or Paul's instructions in Corinthians.
I think that when Christ is inviting us to remember Him, to eat and drink, He is inviting us to remember once again that "Christ in me is the hope of righteousness, the hope of life and truth", he's inviting us to actively partake in the gospel through this symbolic meal. So, I believe that when we take Communion, we reflect upon the gospel and we ask Christ, through the symbolism of the elements, to continue to reveal to us his power in us, his status as the Bread of Life. That we might remain in Him, that we might see Him as our only hope...and, at that, the supreme hope.
So, I guess communion just became a lot less ritualistic to me and a lot more meaningful. I don't feel the pressure to cry while thinking of the cross or to feel disgusting about my sin. I don't have to explain it away with metaphors about Christ's cup sharing as a marriage symbol or his napkin folding as a symbol of justification, etc. I can just eat and drink, abiding in the truth of the gospel, that God has given Himself for us that we might have life, His life in us, His strength and purpose in us.
Anyway, probably nothing new to others, but for me its powerful. For me, this view of "figurative transubstantiation" has changed the way I view communion.
The preacher tries to help me understand this meaning. He recites passages from Corinthians and Mark, he explains that I am to remember Jesus. He sometimes uses historical symbols to reveal the meaning of the bread and the wine. He then proceeds to guide me through the consumption of these foods through prayer and scripture.
But, I still don't understand. I'm stumped...and a little wigged out by the whole thing. I feel as though the whole thing is forced, as if I'm not truly making contact with God but rather just simply eating with a strange ritual attached. Plus, after skipping breakfast this morning, I'd really rather eat a steak instead of a thimble of cheap wine and a mouse-portion of bread. So, it's not even really eating either.
And, honestly, as I plan to be a pastor, I'm wondering how I can continue this necessary, mandated-by-Scripture practice when I can't seem to muster up any kind of authentic feeling or appreciation.
It got me thinking about Catholics. Catholics get so much out of the stinking Eucharist, its like the bread and butter (no pun intended) of the ecclesiastical structure. What does Catholocism teach regarding the Eucharist? Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't know much (because I've grown up in a protestant church) but I do know that there's this word, Transubstantiation. In my understanding, transubstantiation is the "process" by which simple bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ. Not that the bread and wine take the form of body and blood, but that they are, by the Priest's blessing, acting "en persona Christi".
I believe this practice comes from (well many places, but primarily) John 6. In John 6:32-60 or so, Jesus talks about himself being the Bread of Life. Shortly after Jesus "feeds the 5 thousand", some of them find him and ask him to perform more signs and miracles to show that he truly is God. They say "like Moses, you know, God gave him bread in the desert so that the Israelites could live" and Jesus goes "woah woah woah now, you don't get it...I AM the bread of life, I'm the only bread you'll ever need...that bread in the desert was purely physical...I'm the bread that doesn't spoil, that can't be devoured, that fully and eternally satisfies the soul." Then he says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
So, what he's saying is...unless you drink me, eat me...you got nothing. Now, I believe, Catholocism practices the Eucharist (a tradition passed down from the church fathers) by saying, "we're gonna take this bread and wine and ingest it as the body and blood of Christ because apart from Him there is no eternal life, no salvation, no nothin". And so, literally, Catholics partake in the ritual, acknowledging that without it there is nothing good in their own mortal bodies to bring about the righteousness that God requires.
But, what about a figurative interpretation? Is it possible? I believe so. Now, I'm not arguing "figurative vs. literal" because I'm just not qualified to do so. What I am saying is that IF we are going to participate in a figurative interpretation, we may want to heed these verses.
What I see in these verses, what I see in Communion, is a symbolic acknowledgement of the whole gospel. Not just the cross, not just the death of Christ...but the whole package, that the death and ressurection of Christ means that we are called chosen and beloved, means that we are called righteous because of Him. We are no longer dependent upon our own nature to live righteously, but rather upon Christ and his perfect nature. So, when Christ says "I am the Bread of Life, unless you eat it you're dead and can't truly live", I think he's talking about Communion. I think he's alluding to this future "last supper" act, and I think the words in these verses directly mirror those found in Luke 22 or Paul's instructions in Corinthians.
I think that when Christ is inviting us to remember Him, to eat and drink, He is inviting us to remember once again that "Christ in me is the hope of righteousness, the hope of life and truth", he's inviting us to actively partake in the gospel through this symbolic meal. So, I believe that when we take Communion, we reflect upon the gospel and we ask Christ, through the symbolism of the elements, to continue to reveal to us his power in us, his status as the Bread of Life. That we might remain in Him, that we might see Him as our only hope...and, at that, the supreme hope.
So, I guess communion just became a lot less ritualistic to me and a lot more meaningful. I don't feel the pressure to cry while thinking of the cross or to feel disgusting about my sin. I don't have to explain it away with metaphors about Christ's cup sharing as a marriage symbol or his napkin folding as a symbol of justification, etc. I can just eat and drink, abiding in the truth of the gospel, that God has given Himself for us that we might have life, His life in us, His strength and purpose in us.
Anyway, probably nothing new to others, but for me its powerful. For me, this view of "figurative transubstantiation" has changed the way I view communion.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Tinkerers: Blessing or Curse?
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.
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 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)