I just listened to the audiobook of Jesus Wants to Save Christians by Rob Bell and Don Golden. It is an incredible book that paints a wonderful picture of the church today living in a radical story of grace and mission propelled by the symbol (and story) of Eucharist. It goes beyond Eucharist--it is merely a symbol that points us to a deeper reality of just how upside down (or rightside up) the kingdom of God is--power and wealth are status symbols of empire and we exist within an empire. And the Bible doesn't have very positive things to say about empires.
I encourage you to read (or listen) to this book. It will challenge and revolutionize our understanding of what it means to be a Christ follower.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
"Which Story Do We Live In"
Brian McLaren spoke back in August at Mars Hill Church in Michigan. He paints a fascinating picture of the different stories we live in and how they distort the Story of Jesus to fit their own story line. It is powerful.
You can find it here.
You can find it here.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A call from de Caussade
This morning I read the following. I'd really like to get your thoughts.
Notice where the responsibility of holiness lies. Also, pay attention to what de Caussade calls us to.
God will make us holy; he will sanctify us. We are called to "active fidelity." de Caussade is talking mainly about our attempts to make ourselves holy and that is apparent.
But as I read this I keyed in on the thought of "vain systems" and our attempt to syncretize two worlds that have a hard time blending. There is a vain system of spirituality that is very pervasive in our world. It tries to bring the desire of wealth and prosperity along with a spirituality that says God wants this for me. It is on very dangerous ground that one stands upon while making that claim. No where in Scripture, nor history of the Church do we find this idea supported. For 99.9% of Christ followers around the sphere of time and space, this has not been their experience. Reason does not lend to this understanding either. It is a rather recent 20th Century American, modernist/individualist, self-focused lens through which the Bible is read.
Jesus said no one can serve two masters. As we approach the greatest advertising/marketing/spending season of the year, can we hear the whisper of simplicity amidst the ringing cash registers and covetous commercials?
What does it mean to be called to simplicity? What does it look like for us in America? In Suburbia? How does a call to simplicity affect our lives?
Also, what does it mean for us to be called to active fidelity, rather than a pursuit of holiness?
What say you?
Notice where the responsibility of holiness lies. Also, pay attention to what de Caussade calls us to.
God wishes to dwell in us in poverty and without the obvious accessories of holiness which can cause people to be admired. This is because he wishes to be alone the food of our hearts, the sole object of our desiring. We are so weak that if the splendour of austerity, zeal, almsgiving or poverty were to shine out in us, we would take pride in it. Instead, in our way of following Christ, there is nothing but what seems unattractive, and by this means God is able to become the sole means of us achieving holiness, the whole of our support. Meanwhile the world despises us and leaves us to enjoy our treasure in peace.
God wishes to be the sole principle of our sanctity, and for that reason all that depends on us is our active fidelity which is very trifling. Indeed, in God’s sight there can be nothing great in us – with one exception: our total receptivity to his will. God knows how to make us holy, so let us stop worrying about it and leave the business of it to God. All depends on the special protection and operation of providence; our sanctification will occur unknown to us and through those very things which we dislike most and expect least.
Let us walk, then, in the small duties of our life, in active fidelity, without aspiring to great things, for God will not give himself to us for the sake of any exaggerated effort that we make in this matter. We will become saints through the grace of God and by his special providence. He knows the eminence to which he will raise us; let us leave it to him to do as he pleases. Without forming false ideas and vain systems of spirituality, let us be content to love God without ceasing, walking in simplicity along the road which he traced for us, a road where everything seems so insignificant to our eyes and to those of the world.
-- Jean-Pierre de Caussade, Abandonment to Divine Providence
God will make us holy; he will sanctify us. We are called to "active fidelity." de Caussade is talking mainly about our attempts to make ourselves holy and that is apparent.
But as I read this I keyed in on the thought of "vain systems" and our attempt to syncretize two worlds that have a hard time blending. There is a vain system of spirituality that is very pervasive in our world. It tries to bring the desire of wealth and prosperity along with a spirituality that says God wants this for me. It is on very dangerous ground that one stands upon while making that claim. No where in Scripture, nor history of the Church do we find this idea supported. For 99.9% of Christ followers around the sphere of time and space, this has not been their experience. Reason does not lend to this understanding either. It is a rather recent 20th Century American, modernist/individualist, self-focused lens through which the Bible is read.
Jesus said no one can serve two masters. As we approach the greatest advertising/marketing/spending season of the year, can we hear the whisper of simplicity amidst the ringing cash registers and covetous commercials?
What does it mean to be called to simplicity? What does it look like for us in America? In Suburbia? How does a call to simplicity affect our lives?
Also, what does it mean for us to be called to active fidelity, rather than a pursuit of holiness?
What say you?
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Gregory the Great on Praying for our enemies
Remembering what Hippolytus said in the previous post and Christians and the military, I read this reading today (Sept 3 celebrates Gregory the Great) from a homily from Gregory the Great. To me this reading calls us as Christ followers to question how we involve ourselves in politic of war.
Could it be that we have put our patriotism/nationalism before our "Christianism?"
When our hearts are reluctant we often have to compel ourselves to pray for our enemies, to pour out prayer for those who are against us. Would that our hearts were filled with love! How frequently we offer a prayer for our enemies, but do it because we are commanded to, not out of love for them. We ask the gift of life for them even while we are afraid that our prayer may be heard. The judge of our soul considers our hearts rather than our words. Those who do not pray for their enemies out of love are not asking anything for their benefit.
But suppose they have committed a serious offense against us? Suppose they have inflicted losses on those who support us, and have hurt them? Suppose they have persecuted our friends? We might legitimately keep these things in mind if we had no offense of our own to be forgiven.
Jesus, our advocate, has composed a prayer for this situation and in this case the One who pleads our case is also our judge. There is a condition he has inserted in the prayer he composed which reads: Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. Since our advocate is the One who comes to be our judge, his is listening to the prayer he himself composed for our use. Perhaps we the words: “Forgive our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us” without carrying them out, and thus our words bind us more tightly; or perhaps we omit the condition in our prayer, and then our advocate does not recognize the prayer which he composed for us, and say to himself: “I know what I taught them. This is not the prayer I gave them.”
What are we to do then, my friends? We must bestow our love on our brothers and sisters. We must not allow any malice at all to remain in our hearts. May almighty God have regard for our love of our neighbor, so that He may pardon our iniquities! Remember what He taught us: Forgive, and you will be forgiven. People are in debt to us, and us to them. Let us forgive them their debts, so that what we owe may be forgiven.
Could it be that we have put our patriotism/nationalism before our "Christianism?"
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Pacifist Jesus???
John 18:10-11 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servants name was Malchus).
Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"
Peter was carrying a sword some three years into his discipleship. He was prepared to use it and even swung a blow that should have struck the head in a deadly fashion (Good reflexes Malchus)!
If Jesus was against protection or any form of violence he would have surely rebuked Peter not for this one incidence but for ever having thought this action would be OK.
His only rebuke was that at this moment He had to submit and not fight because it was the Fathers will that He be taken.
Jesus being God cannot be molded into the pacifist of our touchy feely generation and culture. I believe that this would be an isogectical and not exegetical endeavor.
Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"
Peter was carrying a sword some three years into his discipleship. He was prepared to use it and even swung a blow that should have struck the head in a deadly fashion (Good reflexes Malchus)!
If Jesus was against protection or any form of violence he would have surely rebuked Peter not for this one incidence but for ever having thought this action would be OK.
His only rebuke was that at this moment He had to submit and not fight because it was the Fathers will that He be taken.
Jesus being God cannot be molded into the pacifist of our touchy feely generation and culture. I believe that this would be an isogectical and not exegetical endeavor.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Hippolytus on ...
Today the life of Hippolytus is honored in the Anglican tradition. He wrote a treatise (ca 215AD) called The Apostolic Tradition, in which he seeks to correct the practice and pattern of worship that was already being either intentionally moved away from or just innovated. Hippolytus saw that the tradition of Christian worship needed to be handed down and kept.
What strikes me is what is found in the list of vocations Hippolytus gives that Christians should not be involved with.
A soldier is not a position worthy of a Christ follower. "...He shall be rejected, for he despised God." I have heard persons in the military say "for God and country." Hippolytus would, of course, have a major disagreement with that.
Is Hippolytus off in left field? If he's not, what does that mean for American Christianity that sees American patriotism as part and parcel of the Christian faith?
Also, he says that if a Christian military man in authority is not to execute people, what does that say about capital punishment?
What strikes me is what is found in the list of vocations Hippolytus gives that Christians should not be involved with.
16 They will inquire concerning the works and occupations of those are who are brought forward for instruction.2If someone is a pimp who supports prostitutes, he shall cease or shall be rejected.3If someone is a sculptor or a painter, let them be taught not to make idols. Either let them cease or let them be rejected. 4If someone is an actor or does shows in the theater, either he shall cease or he shall be rejected. 5If someone teaches children (worldly knowledge), it is good that he cease. But if he has no (other) trade, let him be permitted. 6A charioteer, likewise, or one who takes part in the games, or one who goes to the games, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. 7If someone is a gladiator, or one who teaches those among the gladiators how to fight, or a hunter who is in the wild beast shows in the arena, or a public official who is concerned with gladiator shows, either he shall cease, or he shall be rejected. 8If someone is a priest of idols, or an attendant of idols, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. 9A military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he must not carry it out. Nor must he take military oath. If he refuses, he shall be rejected. 10If someone is a military governor or the ruler of a city who wears the purple, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. 11The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God. 12The prostitute, the wanton man, the one who castrates himself, or one who does that which may not be mentioned, are to be rejected, for they are impure. 13A magus shall not even be brought forward for consideration.14An enchanter, or astrologer, or diviner, or interpreter of dreamsb, or a charlatanc, or one who makes amulets, either they shall cease or they shall be rejected. 15If someone's concubine is a slave, as long as she has raised her children and has clung only to him, let her hear. Otherwise, she shall be rejected. 16The man who has a concubine must cease and take a wife according to the law. If he will not, he shall be rejected.
A soldier is not a position worthy of a Christ follower. "...He shall be rejected, for he despised God." I have heard persons in the military say "for God and country." Hippolytus would, of course, have a major disagreement with that.
Is Hippolytus off in left field? If he's not, what does that mean for American Christianity that sees American patriotism as part and parcel of the Christian faith?
Also, he says that if a Christian military man in authority is not to execute people, what does that say about capital punishment?
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
A quote from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin said in "The Phenomenon of Man" published in 1959 (A highly controversial book in the Roman Church [and subsequently probably Protestant as well] ),
"Our century is probably more religious than any other. How could it fail to be, with such problems to be solved? The only trouble is that it has not yet found a God it can adore."
Obviously he was progressive. In this book he attempted to weave together like a jacket zipper two unseemingly divergent points: science, viz. evolution, with theology. And this is what got him into trouble. However this little quote from the book seems to be very interesting to me. For in this statement there is a sense of progression. That as the church continues to be the church, living into the realities of the kingdom of God, the world will find the God it can adore. Idealistic, yes; Romantic, yes; Ivory tower, no. Maybe the optimism of grace. Maybe a little bit of Moltmann's Panentheism?
What say you?
Addendum:
Thanks to Curt, who is always graciously helping me say things better, I will try to give a clearer thought.
I find this quote to be fascinating. A world with so many problems to be solved and his thought that this makes our world more religious. It could be the very reason we have the problems that need to be solved is due to the very lack of religion (and I mean it in the historical sense, and in the idea of Wesley--a religion of the heart). Yet de Chardin's thought isn't left in that paradox, but the simple realization that the god the world serves is itself.
I could be reading into de Chardin's thought when I said that it points me to an optimism of grace...and that if the church re-orients herself to God's kingdom and the triune God working in the world to set all things to rights and participates in that, the world begins to see this God it can adore. I see in this quote (for whatever reason) a call to live more intentionally in the ways of Jesus. I think of Hauerwas who talked of the church being the identity the world is so desperately looking for, which it doesn't have.
Am I in left field blowing dandelion seeds?
"Our century is probably more religious than any other. How could it fail to be, with such problems to be solved? The only trouble is that it has not yet found a God it can adore."
Obviously he was progressive. In this book he attempted to weave together like a jacket zipper two unseemingly divergent points: science, viz. evolution, with theology. And this is what got him into trouble. However this little quote from the book seems to be very interesting to me. For in this statement there is a sense of progression. That as the church continues to be the church, living into the realities of the kingdom of God, the world will find the God it can adore. Idealistic, yes; Romantic, yes; Ivory tower, no. Maybe the optimism of grace. Maybe a little bit of Moltmann's Panentheism?
What say you?
Addendum:
Thanks to Curt, who is always graciously helping me say things better, I will try to give a clearer thought.
I find this quote to be fascinating. A world with so many problems to be solved and his thought that this makes our world more religious. It could be the very reason we have the problems that need to be solved is due to the very lack of religion (and I mean it in the historical sense, and in the idea of Wesley--a religion of the heart). Yet de Chardin's thought isn't left in that paradox, but the simple realization that the god the world serves is itself.
I could be reading into de Chardin's thought when I said that it points me to an optimism of grace...and that if the church re-orients herself to God's kingdom and the triune God working in the world to set all things to rights and participates in that, the world begins to see this God it can adore. I see in this quote (for whatever reason) a call to live more intentionally in the ways of Jesus. I think of Hauerwas who talked of the church being the identity the world is so desperately looking for, which it doesn't have.
Am I in left field blowing dandelion seeds?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)