A homeless man named Aaron shared some thoughts with us, the Church, the other night:
"Why are you here? What makes the Church any different from anyone else when it comes to interacting with the "less fortunate," the disenfranchised, the poor, the homeless, the helpless?
Anyone can feed a homeless man. What makes the Church any different? Where is the difference? Why do you do what you do? Why aren't you doing it differently? Where is hospitality?
Why don't you invite us into your homes?
Who are you?"
...
These are good questions. These are good thoughts. Good enough, in fact, to end on.
And so, I leave this pseudo-world, which touches on partial bits of reality, known as online blogging. See you in the [real] world.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Of the Resurrection People
A man in his 70's has two kidneys that are both at 25% functioning capacity, and declining: he is in danger of going on dialysis. He has diabetes. He has had two strokes in the last year. He has been to the ER three times in the last month, stayed overnight and for more than one day two of the three times. He walks slowly, but with confidence. He talks slowly, but powerfully in volume and spirit.
He was offered a chair to sit in while he preached his sermon this past Sunday. He ended up standing the entirety of his sermon that was around an hour, mostly because it needed to be translated to meet the other half of the bilingual audience.
His sermon was entitled "We are a Resurrection People." Death comes to us all, he said. We are born dying. Even Christ died. But it did not end there, because God is the God of Life! Likewise, for all of us who seek to follow Jesus, it does not end there for us, both now and then, literally and.... well, there really is no figuratively seeing as how we are holisitic in our faith.
He summed up all he had to say by declaring that we must either get busy living, or get busy dying!!
This man's name was Ezekiel. In his weakness, in his process of dying, this man is busy living. This man will fall into the valley and become nothing but bone and dust. This servant of God who has been faithful will rise together with his brothers and sisters from the dead. This man is of the Resurrection People.
I'm glad I know him.
He was offered a chair to sit in while he preached his sermon this past Sunday. He ended up standing the entirety of his sermon that was around an hour, mostly because it needed to be translated to meet the other half of the bilingual audience.
His sermon was entitled "We are a Resurrection People." Death comes to us all, he said. We are born dying. Even Christ died. But it did not end there, because God is the God of Life! Likewise, for all of us who seek to follow Jesus, it does not end there for us, both now and then, literally and.... well, there really is no figuratively seeing as how we are holisitic in our faith.
He summed up all he had to say by declaring that we must either get busy living, or get busy dying!!
This man's name was Ezekiel. In his weakness, in his process of dying, this man is busy living. This man will fall into the valley and become nothing but bone and dust. This servant of God who has been faithful will rise together with his brothers and sisters from the dead. This man is of the Resurrection People.
I'm glad I know him.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Question: "Why do not your disciples avoid the words we have deemed dirty?
Why do not your disciples avoid becoing friends with women flirty?
Why do not your disciples avoid doing work on the Sabbath, though good it may be?
Why do not your disciples avoid eating with thieves, the kinds of men who hang from trees?"
Reply: Is a word not a word, the purpose comes from and the judgment falls on the heart?
Does not new life come from a woman, flirty or not; should the law be lived full or just part?
Was the Sabbath, or any other Good gift for this matter, made to create strife?
You think not exists the power to tranform curse into blessing, the thief to repent, the tree into life?
Why do not your disciples avoid becoing friends with women flirty?
Why do not your disciples avoid doing work on the Sabbath, though good it may be?
Why do not your disciples avoid eating with thieves, the kinds of men who hang from trees?"
Reply: Is a word not a word, the purpose comes from and the judgment falls on the heart?
Does not new life come from a woman, flirty or not; should the law be lived full or just part?
Was the Sabbath, or any other Good gift for this matter, made to create strife?
You think not exists the power to tranform curse into blessing, the thief to repent, the tree into life?
Friday, July 31, 2009
What Did Jesus Do?
Earlier today... or yesterday... I was thinking about Christian apologetics. [We] attempt to defend so much in both academic as well as "around the dinner table" conversations with those outside the faith. We also defend truths with those who claim the title of Christian but do not seem to adhere to scripture (and let's face it, not adhering to scripture as a whole, on any level, makes the claimer of the Christian title decidedly not a Christian as part of the definition; in other words, drop the Bible drop the title). A significant part of the definition of Christian is to follow Christ. What did it mean to follow Christ? What does it mean now, today, to follow Christ? I suppose, to "follow" someone is to do what they say.
Christ told his "followers" many things. As a premise of sorts, he once said, "If you love me, you will obey my commands." He only had TWO: Love the Lord your God with all your heart soul mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." What does this look like, though? Well, he answered that question in both word and deed. He told his followers to "turn the other cheek," to "bear their crosses" daily, to lay down their lives for their friends, to welcome little children, to not cause them (little children) to sin, to give everything (including money) to love God and others, to trust God with everyday/all cares and concerns, to forgive one another. He even went into specifics, highlighting many themes, about how this "way," this "truth," this "life" might look: divorce, adultery, murder, hatred, lust, pride, money, respect, obedience, submission, prayer, fasting, peace making.
Let go of all we once held dear to gain something even more important: [true] LOVE. This is a state of being, not [just] an emotion. This is what we become that we might be saved. He came to show the way that we would follow, and this is how we are saved. We BELIEVE his message, and then we ACT, or follow it!!! Faith and works, or else we are dead.
Did Jesus ever argue with the Pharisees about how much the Father actually knew? Did Jesus bring up ideas of predestination or free will? Did Jesus argue with people about who would be saved and who wouldn't? He showed the way is narrow and few are those who travel on it, but did he say who those few were/are? Did Jesus claim any titles for himself or his disciples beyond the obvious (Son of Man and.... disciples/followers)? Did Jesus defend his virgin birth or even proclaim it as part of his Kingdom message? Did Jesus talk about any of the omni's of God, other than that God cares about every detail going on, because He loves us in the sense that He wants what is best for us (for our own sake, the sake of each other, the sake of His extended creation, and for His own sake)? Did Jesus ever argue over theological details beyond justice, righteousness... LOVE? They (various doctrines, and/or truths) are important, they have their place around the various tables of discussioin, but are they the focus(es)? Should they be as much as we make them to be?
He knew who he was, he knew who the Father was, and he trusted Him and showed us how. Maybe that's all I really need to know, the "solid rock" on which I may rest in the midst of storms of questions, uncertainty and of doubt.
Maranatha.
Christ told his "followers" many things. As a premise of sorts, he once said, "If you love me, you will obey my commands." He only had TWO: Love the Lord your God with all your heart soul mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." What does this look like, though? Well, he answered that question in both word and deed. He told his followers to "turn the other cheek," to "bear their crosses" daily, to lay down their lives for their friends, to welcome little children, to not cause them (little children) to sin, to give everything (including money) to love God and others, to trust God with everyday/all cares and concerns, to forgive one another. He even went into specifics, highlighting many themes, about how this "way," this "truth," this "life" might look: divorce, adultery, murder, hatred, lust, pride, money, respect, obedience, submission, prayer, fasting, peace making.
Let go of all we once held dear to gain something even more important: [true] LOVE. This is a state of being, not [just] an emotion. This is what we become that we might be saved. He came to show the way that we would follow, and this is how we are saved. We BELIEVE his message, and then we ACT, or follow it!!! Faith and works, or else we are dead.
Did Jesus ever argue with the Pharisees about how much the Father actually knew? Did Jesus bring up ideas of predestination or free will? Did Jesus argue with people about who would be saved and who wouldn't? He showed the way is narrow and few are those who travel on it, but did he say who those few were/are? Did Jesus claim any titles for himself or his disciples beyond the obvious (Son of Man and.... disciples/followers)? Did Jesus defend his virgin birth or even proclaim it as part of his Kingdom message? Did Jesus talk about any of the omni's of God, other than that God cares about every detail going on, because He loves us in the sense that He wants what is best for us (for our own sake, the sake of each other, the sake of His extended creation, and for His own sake)? Did Jesus ever argue over theological details beyond justice, righteousness... LOVE? They (various doctrines, and/or truths) are important, they have their place around the various tables of discussioin, but are they the focus(es)? Should they be as much as we make them to be?
He knew who he was, he knew who the Father was, and he trusted Him and showed us how. Maybe that's all I really need to know, the "solid rock" on which I may rest in the midst of storms of questions, uncertainty and of doubt.
Maranatha.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Open Theism, 2
Our ideas of who God is, as Christians, should be significantly framed by scripture, though not entirely. The following is an honest thought shared by an unnamed gentle critic of Brian Mclaren's book, A Generous Orthodoxy:
"I think the emphasis on narrative and poetry is important because it
opens up the way for imagination. By being less specific, it is (in
some ways) more mind-expanding. By opening up more possibilities, it
leads to less certainty in interpretation and hopefully more humility
on our part. All this is good and I am on board with you. But if we
minimize the sections that are more expository, don't we risk the loss
of some pretty important data that shaped the basics of the Christian
tradition. ... I am just trying to think through what we are going to
give the next generation to work with."
I feel as though we should be able to answer the following question with depth, maybe even extensively, but not definitively, certainly, or with the idea that the answer has a knowable limit: What all do we have to work with?
"I think the emphasis on narrative and poetry is important because it
opens up the way for imagination. By being less specific, it is (in
some ways) more mind-expanding. By opening up more possibilities, it
leads to less certainty in interpretation and hopefully more humility
on our part. All this is good and I am on board with you. But if we
minimize the sections that are more expository, don't we risk the loss
of some pretty important data that shaped the basics of the Christian
tradition. ... I am just trying to think through what we are going to
give the next generation to work with."
I feel as though we should be able to answer the following question with depth, maybe even extensively, but not definitively, certainly, or with the idea that the answer has a knowable limit: What all do we have to work with?
Monday, June 22, 2009
Open Theism, 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Theism
Questions: How much has Greek philosophy affected the derivation of doctrine throughout the history of the Church? Is the future a frame of reference that already exists somewhere, someway, in some time? Is there more than just the now? Is time something that actually exists beyond the perceivable? What determines time? What is time beyond our menial measurements, our perception from this blue-green-brown sphere? What are the implications of the proposed ideas that God is not omni-present, omniscient, omnipotent? What if God simply is? What if God is more powerful than you, than I, than anything or anyone else, but is not more than what He is? What if what, who, He is is not as much of tradition has thought throughout the history of that tradition- the tradition of the Church?
I find myself becoming more and more Wesleyan in thought, and beyond, everyday. As it were, the quadrilateral is the lens through by which I attempt to discern about anything, not just theology. Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. It seems to me that it would be both responsible and appropriate to say that the [observable] sciences would fall into the quadrant of experience (I hope I am not misusing this methodology). Example: psychology, genetics, etc. may responsibly help man further understand his collective nature which may in turn aid in understanding who God may be as man is made in God's image. This by no means states or implies that God can be fully grasped: man cannot even be fully understood! Neither does this state or imply that scripture is to be tossed aside. At the end of the day, when the good hermeneutical work is exhausted, and when the traditions of the brothers and sisters of the faith throughout the whole of history are remembered and discussed, and when the Spirit of God speaks His peace, and when the meaning is understood as best as can be removed from the writer then Scripture will be free to do its good work in being used to move the heart of the reader who will appropriately and responsibly and humbly and quietly listen.
As it were, the sciences may be able to play their part in the quadrant of experience, man might use his reason to explain what it is he is experiencing, the traditions may act as a source of accountability to show what is not and what is true (past, present, and future as far as thoughts are concerned that includes doctrine, actions, etc.), and the poetry and truth of scripture might breathe life into the whole.
Open theistic ideas might conflict with tradition, but which tradition? The ones that prevailed in their time? The ones that prevail today? Open theistic ideas do not necessarily conflict with scripture. They do not necessarily conflict with reason. They do not even necessarily conflict with experience.
Perhaps God is not who we have thought Him to be: is it possible that in thoughts of God being "less" (in qualities, attributes, that have traditionally been ascribed to Him), He is actually more?
Questions: How much has Greek philosophy affected the derivation of doctrine throughout the history of the Church? Is the future a frame of reference that already exists somewhere, someway, in some time? Is there more than just the now? Is time something that actually exists beyond the perceivable? What determines time? What is time beyond our menial measurements, our perception from this blue-green-brown sphere? What are the implications of the proposed ideas that God is not omni-present, omniscient, omnipotent? What if God simply is? What if God is more powerful than you, than I, than anything or anyone else, but is not more than what He is? What if what, who, He is is not as much of tradition has thought throughout the history of that tradition- the tradition of the Church?
I find myself becoming more and more Wesleyan in thought, and beyond, everyday. As it were, the quadrilateral is the lens through by which I attempt to discern about anything, not just theology. Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. It seems to me that it would be both responsible and appropriate to say that the [observable] sciences would fall into the quadrant of experience (I hope I am not misusing this methodology). Example: psychology, genetics, etc. may responsibly help man further understand his collective nature which may in turn aid in understanding who God may be as man is made in God's image. This by no means states or implies that God can be fully grasped: man cannot even be fully understood! Neither does this state or imply that scripture is to be tossed aside. At the end of the day, when the good hermeneutical work is exhausted, and when the traditions of the brothers and sisters of the faith throughout the whole of history are remembered and discussed, and when the Spirit of God speaks His peace, and when the meaning is understood as best as can be removed from the writer then Scripture will be free to do its good work in being used to move the heart of the reader who will appropriately and responsibly and humbly and quietly listen.
As it were, the sciences may be able to play their part in the quadrant of experience, man might use his reason to explain what it is he is experiencing, the traditions may act as a source of accountability to show what is not and what is true (past, present, and future as far as thoughts are concerned that includes doctrine, actions, etc.), and the poetry and truth of scripture might breathe life into the whole.
Open theistic ideas might conflict with tradition, but which tradition? The ones that prevailed in their time? The ones that prevail today? Open theistic ideas do not necessarily conflict with scripture. They do not necessarily conflict with reason. They do not even necessarily conflict with experience.
Perhaps God is not who we have thought Him to be: is it possible that in thoughts of God being "less" (in qualities, attributes, that have traditionally been ascribed to Him), He is actually more?
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Five Valued Lessons From My Parents
*How to work and to do it well (sometimes I still struggle with implementing my best efforts into work –as my friend Justin Nowicki puts it, excellence—and not just enough to look like I did well): thank you.
*How to find or look for anything or anyone until it is found (unless the person does not want to be found): thank you.
*How to stay clean/ordered, both literally and figuratively (at times I come up short, especially in the literally department, ha): thank you.
*How to admit when I am wrong, to make myself low and reconcile with the other (persons or institutions); this teaching helped to keep me from straying too far down any paths of rebellion that I may have trotted down at one point or another in the last five years: thank you.
*How to love everyone I would walk with in this life, to try to not judge no matter one’s appearance or attitude, for my appearance and attitude has been shabby at one point or another (and some people do not have as strong a will or good folks to show a good way as others may have had): all are eligible to receive grace and good gifts from the Father above, myself indcluded: thank you.
*How to find or look for anything or anyone until it is found (unless the person does not want to be found)
*How to stay clean/ordered, both literally and figuratively (at times I come up short, especially in the literally department, ha): thank you.
*How to admit when I am wrong, to make myself low and reconcile with the other (persons or institutions); this teaching helped to keep me from straying too far down any paths of rebellion that I may have trotted down at one point or another in the last five years: thank you.
*How to love everyone I would walk with in this life, to try to not judge no matter one’s appearance or attitude, for my appearance and attitude has been shabby at one point or another (and some people do not have as strong a will or good folks to show a good way as others may have had): all are eligible to receive grace and good gifts from the Father above, myself indcluded: thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
