9.28.2003
Webber Meets McLuhan
In The Younger Evanglicals Robert Webber provides us with more old news. He tells us, “the idea that ‘the medium is the message’ holds important ramifications for the communication of the Christian faith.”
While this is a, “Duh!” in the best Bart Simpson style, I have to confess that I haven’t heard it applied too many times from the pulpit. I guess being raised fundy has its drawbacks. Webber takes McLuhan’s (by now pedestrian) idea and translates that into some practical applications:
• First, the real message of Christianity is not rational propositions but the person of Jesus Christ with whom a personal relationship is possible.
• Second, this personal relationship is communicated in a community – the church, his body.
• Third, to communicate a relationship with Jesus Christ, the church must be an embodied presence, an authentic and real community in whom the Spirit dwells.
• Fourth, the primary concern of the church is to communicate not dogma, though it does have its place, but faith.
• Fifth, the primary way of communicating faith is through a combination of oral, visual, and print forms of participatory immersed communication (or cultural transmission).
So what this means is the ancient First Century concept that God revealed his word to us in the person of Jesus Christ proves that God “gets” it. If the medium is the message and the message is Jesus Christ, then the medium today (and really always has been) is people.
We were shocked in the 70’s to find out that Soylent Green is people but missed the message of Jesus who said, “Take. Eat. This is my body which is broken for you.”
We caught the idea that TV shaped the culture but missed the message that we are the medium for shaping a culture for Christ.
Where did we miss the boat? How could we not have seen the tremendous implications in McLuhan’s words for Christianity today? As I’ve said before, the problem with us fundies is not that we don’t have the answers but that we aren’t asking the right questions. No one said (at least within the circle that was influencing me) or at least I wasn’t paying attention if they did say anything about this. The question that should have been asked nearly 40 years ago is, “If the medium is the message, what does this mean for us as Christians. What is our message? What is our medium? Are we communicating the message of God in the medium of His choosing or the medium of our choosing? And if we are, what has this done to God’s message?”
In The Younger Evanglicals Robert Webber provides us with more old news. He tells us, “the idea that ‘the medium is the message’ holds important ramifications for the communication of the Christian faith.”
While this is a, “Duh!” in the best Bart Simpson style, I have to confess that I haven’t heard it applied too many times from the pulpit. I guess being raised fundy has its drawbacks. Webber takes McLuhan’s (by now pedestrian) idea and translates that into some practical applications:
• First, the real message of Christianity is not rational propositions but the person of Jesus Christ with whom a personal relationship is possible.
• Second, this personal relationship is communicated in a community – the church, his body.
• Third, to communicate a relationship with Jesus Christ, the church must be an embodied presence, an authentic and real community in whom the Spirit dwells.
• Fourth, the primary concern of the church is to communicate not dogma, though it does have its place, but faith.
• Fifth, the primary way of communicating faith is through a combination of oral, visual, and print forms of participatory immersed communication (or cultural transmission).
So what this means is the ancient First Century concept that God revealed his word to us in the person of Jesus Christ proves that God “gets” it. If the medium is the message and the message is Jesus Christ, then the medium today (and really always has been) is people.
We were shocked in the 70’s to find out that Soylent Green is people but missed the message of Jesus who said, “Take. Eat. This is my body which is broken for you.”
We caught the idea that TV shaped the culture but missed the message that we are the medium for shaping a culture for Christ.
Where did we miss the boat? How could we not have seen the tremendous implications in McLuhan’s words for Christianity today? As I’ve said before, the problem with us fundies is not that we don’t have the answers but that we aren’t asking the right questions. No one said (at least within the circle that was influencing me) or at least I wasn’t paying attention if they did say anything about this. The question that should have been asked nearly 40 years ago is, “If the medium is the message, what does this mean for us as Christians. What is our message? What is our medium? Are we communicating the message of God in the medium of His choosing or the medium of our choosing? And if we are, what has this done to God’s message?”
9.27.2003
My Myers-Briggs
You're an ENFP
ENFP>
What's there to say about you? You're an initiator of change and are keenly in tune to possibilities... you're enthusiastic, and it's contagious...you're tireless in the pursuit of newfound interests... You can anticipate the needs of others, and offer them needed help and appreciation. You bring zest, livelihood, and fun to all aspects of your life...
You're agreeable, sociable, outgoing and like to imagine yourself in the future... who will you marry? what type of work will you do? where will you live? All questions you ask yourself...you like to keep your options open...you're imaginative...curious...you prefer to understand than judge..
You see endless possibilities. You hate to be boxed into anything -- like a career -- for life...so you hesitate and resist making decisions...always look for new and novel...
You like a learning environment where the teacher takes a personal interest in you...You're motto might be: "There's always a better way or a better answer.."... when you're committed to something, you are enthusiastic to the point of preaching to the whole world about it (...like the Storm Palace?)
Your style of organization is... well, personalized. Others don't really see you as organized, though, do they? YOU know what's where, and there's a "method to your madness," huh?
You have a hard time separating work from leisure, since you have fun while you work. You're always on the lookout for new things... you like learning with others, so you'll invite 'em to join you at films, plays and classes.
When you fall in love, you study the other person in every way. The one you fall in love with is "the best ever" a lot, huh? Sheesh. But others feel unconditionally loved by you ....you fall head over heels and get in love FAST.
You are charming...full of vitality...you treat others with sympathy, gentleness, and warmth...
Last part: watch out for losing your focus 'cause you wanna try too many ideas at the same time... you don't prioritize, so you can overload...also, because you're just a fun-loving animal, you might not complete important work and basic responsibilities...
ENFP: "Every day, New Fantastic Possibilities"
From: http://www.haleonline.com/psych/
You're an ENFP
ENFP>
What's there to say about you? You're an initiator of change and are keenly in tune to possibilities... you're enthusiastic, and it's contagious...you're tireless in the pursuit of newfound interests... You can anticipate the needs of others, and offer them needed help and appreciation. You bring zest, livelihood, and fun to all aspects of your life...
You're agreeable, sociable, outgoing and like to imagine yourself in the future... who will you marry? what type of work will you do? where will you live? All questions you ask yourself...you like to keep your options open...you're imaginative...curious...you prefer to understand than judge..
You see endless possibilities. You hate to be boxed into anything -- like a career -- for life...so you hesitate and resist making decisions...always look for new and novel...
You like a learning environment where the teacher takes a personal interest in you...You're motto might be: "There's always a better way or a better answer.."... when you're committed to something, you are enthusiastic to the point of preaching to the whole world about it (...like the Storm Palace?)
Your style of organization is... well, personalized. Others don't really see you as organized, though, do they? YOU know what's where, and there's a "method to your madness," huh?
You have a hard time separating work from leisure, since you have fun while you work. You're always on the lookout for new things... you like learning with others, so you'll invite 'em to join you at films, plays and classes.
When you fall in love, you study the other person in every way. The one you fall in love with is "the best ever" a lot, huh? Sheesh. But others feel unconditionally loved by you ....you fall head over heels and get in love FAST.
You are charming...full of vitality...you treat others with sympathy, gentleness, and warmth...
Last part: watch out for losing your focus 'cause you wanna try too many ideas at the same time... you don't prioritize, so you can overload...also, because you're just a fun-loving animal, you might not complete important work and basic responsibilities...
ENFP: "Every day, New Fantastic Possibilities"
From: http://www.haleonline.com/psych/
9.26.2003
From the Desk of Gamaliel
I was listening this past week to a young enthusiast who was lamenting the lack of Pharisee contributions to the art world. He complained that it is nearly impossible to find exhibits of good Pharisee artwork. His complaint is legitimate and I would like to explain why that is to be expected.
The first fact is that the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is a totally liberal, godless organization dedicated to stamping out Christianity. They have no intention of promoting anything that is even remotely Christian, let alone Pharisee art. This has been clearly documented in a host of publications and needs nothing added from my perspective. NEA animosity to the Christian worldview is the main reason that Christians have been forced out of the arts community.
To be perfectly honest, however, a True Christian should have no desire to be associated with such a crowd in the first place. God has called us to “come out from among them and be separate.” He tells us to “touch not the unclean thing.” So it stands to reason that we should abandon the NEA. A God-fearing person would no sooner associate with the corrupt folk of the arts community than he would hang out in a bar. Such practice violates the practice of godly Christian Separation.
The uneasy consequence of this is that by leaving an already corrupt organization the NEA has only become more corrupt. Some Christians point to this as unfortunate because they feel that Christians should be salt and light in a corrupt world, providing a godly influence from within. My opinion is it only serves to prove the point that they were not worth being associated with in the first place. We need to “leave Ephraim alone because they have joined themselves to idols.”
There are a couple possible solutions. One is to start a totally separate Christian Endowment for the Arts with no connection to worldly arts organizations. We maintain a “Christian Ghetto” mentality of being totally separate from the world. We should not seek to mingle side by side with the heathen but proudly display that we are separate and distinct from them.
The other is to continue to be persecuted for the cause of Christ. Christian art doesn’t have to be high quality to be persecuted. All it needs is to have the name “Christian” associated with it and the world will mock us for our poor artistic quality and lack of insight. They do this because they don’t understand that God is honored by the effort, not by the final quality of the output.
Some churches have tried to go a third route and that is to incorporate art as part of their worship centers. I applaud this in the occasional Thomas Kincade painting hung in the church foyer but this isn’t what these churches are doing. One of the most egregiously excessive abusers of this notion is Westwinds Community Church who has gone to excess in their artistic display. Worship buildings should be plain and simple. They should enhance the preaching of the word, not detract from it. The pastor, Ron Martoia, is a known liberal who has some rather radical notions about how to conduct the ministry.
So what is a dedicated Pharisee to do? We should continue to boycott all industries that hire primarily non-Christian artists like Disney, SKG-Dreamworks and everything except VeggieTales. Of course now that they have gone bankrupt and sold out, it is probably only a matter of time before they go worldly too. Hannah-Barbera has attempted to pander to a Christian audience but their attempts aren’t going to work because they also try to reach secular people. All this does is water down the hard truth of the gospel.
GAMALIEL/RJP
He told them still another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough.”
MATTHEW 13:33 (NIV)
I was listening this past week to a young enthusiast who was lamenting the lack of Pharisee contributions to the art world. He complained that it is nearly impossible to find exhibits of good Pharisee artwork. His complaint is legitimate and I would like to explain why that is to be expected.
The first fact is that the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is a totally liberal, godless organization dedicated to stamping out Christianity. They have no intention of promoting anything that is even remotely Christian, let alone Pharisee art. This has been clearly documented in a host of publications and needs nothing added from my perspective. NEA animosity to the Christian worldview is the main reason that Christians have been forced out of the arts community.
To be perfectly honest, however, a True Christian should have no desire to be associated with such a crowd in the first place. God has called us to “come out from among them and be separate.” He tells us to “touch not the unclean thing.” So it stands to reason that we should abandon the NEA. A God-fearing person would no sooner associate with the corrupt folk of the arts community than he would hang out in a bar. Such practice violates the practice of godly Christian Separation.
The uneasy consequence of this is that by leaving an already corrupt organization the NEA has only become more corrupt. Some Christians point to this as unfortunate because they feel that Christians should be salt and light in a corrupt world, providing a godly influence from within. My opinion is it only serves to prove the point that they were not worth being associated with in the first place. We need to “leave Ephraim alone because they have joined themselves to idols.”
There are a couple possible solutions. One is to start a totally separate Christian Endowment for the Arts with no connection to worldly arts organizations. We maintain a “Christian Ghetto” mentality of being totally separate from the world. We should not seek to mingle side by side with the heathen but proudly display that we are separate and distinct from them.
The other is to continue to be persecuted for the cause of Christ. Christian art doesn’t have to be high quality to be persecuted. All it needs is to have the name “Christian” associated with it and the world will mock us for our poor artistic quality and lack of insight. They do this because they don’t understand that God is honored by the effort, not by the final quality of the output.
Some churches have tried to go a third route and that is to incorporate art as part of their worship centers. I applaud this in the occasional Thomas Kincade painting hung in the church foyer but this isn’t what these churches are doing. One of the most egregiously excessive abusers of this notion is Westwinds Community Church who has gone to excess in their artistic display. Worship buildings should be plain and simple. They should enhance the preaching of the word, not detract from it. The pastor, Ron Martoia, is a known liberal who has some rather radical notions about how to conduct the ministry.
So what is a dedicated Pharisee to do? We should continue to boycott all industries that hire primarily non-Christian artists like Disney, SKG-Dreamworks and everything except VeggieTales. Of course now that they have gone bankrupt and sold out, it is probably only a matter of time before they go worldly too. Hannah-Barbera has attempted to pander to a Christian audience but their attempts aren’t going to work because they also try to reach secular people. All this does is water down the hard truth of the gospel.
GAMALIEL/RJP
He told them still another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough.”
MATTHEW 13:33 (NIV)
9.22.2003
AWANA AWARENESS
Just got back from AWANA (Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed) Bible Club tonight. This is our third week and I cannot believe the thrill to be working with kids again. Every year about this time I get that homesick feeling for the classroom. I haven’t been in a Jr. High/H.S. classroom in over a decade now and I still miss it. Working with kids helps me scratch a little bit of that itch.
But there are a variety of levels where I’m working. The most obvious is with the kids in the class – teaching them their verses, helping manage behavior, etc. The other level is teaching the AWANA helper teens. This isn’t anything I’m doing directly but simply by being there, being an example and demonstrating competency. A number of kids show promise and I really enjoy working with them.
And then there is teaching that happens when the kids teach me. Both the Sparks & and the teens are helping me learn a lot about myself. It’s great to be “back in the saddle” again even if I’m only doing a tiny part. I like tiny parts. I would much rather impact one or three or a few than be known by many and not having an impact. It’s all about influence. If I can do that, then I am content.
Just got back from AWANA (Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed) Bible Club tonight. This is our third week and I cannot believe the thrill to be working with kids again. Every year about this time I get that homesick feeling for the classroom. I haven’t been in a Jr. High/H.S. classroom in over a decade now and I still miss it. Working with kids helps me scratch a little bit of that itch.
But there are a variety of levels where I’m working. The most obvious is with the kids in the class – teaching them their verses, helping manage behavior, etc. The other level is teaching the AWANA helper teens. This isn’t anything I’m doing directly but simply by being there, being an example and demonstrating competency. A number of kids show promise and I really enjoy working with them.
And then there is teaching that happens when the kids teach me. Both the Sparks & and the teens are helping me learn a lot about myself. It’s great to be “back in the saddle” again even if I’m only doing a tiny part. I like tiny parts. I would much rather impact one or three or a few than be known by many and not having an impact. It’s all about influence. If I can do that, then I am content.
9.17.2003
How Did Jesus Teach?
The Divine Conspiracy continues:
We must recongnize, first of all, that the aim of the popular teacher in Jesus' time was not to impart information, but to make a significant change in the lives of the hearers. Of course that may require an information transfer, but it is a peculiarly modern notion that the aim of teaching is to bring people to know things that may have no effect at all on their lives.
Willard is both insightful and naive at the same time here. Naive because those of us who are professional educators know this alredy. We understand that there are cognitive and affective components to education. Any class that does not have as its goal a behavioral or performance objective is an exercise in futility.
otoh, pulpiteers of today are rarely professional educators. They somehow think that given enough information, someone is going to change their behavior. It is this flawed assumption on the part of our former pastor that caused us (in part) to leave Candy's home church and move to the C@CH. A pastor who operates under this flawed paradigm is going to be largely ineffective and won't grow people. In that, Willard is right. There are people who think information transfer = behavior (and character) change.
Our challenge then is to speak in such a way that we motivate and bring about a change in people, not just transfer information.
So how do we do that?
I have some opinions and may even share them as we go on.
The Divine Conspiracy continues:
We must recongnize, first of all, that the aim of the popular teacher in Jesus' time was not to impart information, but to make a significant change in the lives of the hearers. Of course that may require an information transfer, but it is a peculiarly modern notion that the aim of teaching is to bring people to know things that may have no effect at all on their lives.
Willard is both insightful and naive at the same time here. Naive because those of us who are professional educators know this alredy. We understand that there are cognitive and affective components to education. Any class that does not have as its goal a behavioral or performance objective is an exercise in futility.
otoh, pulpiteers of today are rarely professional educators. They somehow think that given enough information, someone is going to change their behavior. It is this flawed assumption on the part of our former pastor that caused us (in part) to leave Candy's home church and move to the C@CH. A pastor who operates under this flawed paradigm is going to be largely ineffective and won't grow people. In that, Willard is right. There are people who think information transfer = behavior (and character) change.
Our challenge then is to speak in such a way that we motivate and bring about a change in people, not just transfer information.
So how do we do that?
I have some opinions and may even share them as we go on.
9.16.2003
Been a busy week-end. Worked a marching band festival Saturday, ran pillar to post Sunday, had AWANA on Monday night and am just plumb tired tonight.
I will pick up with something tomorrow.
rest easy, folks.
I will pick up with something tomorrow.
rest easy, folks.
9.11.2003
Dallas Willard on How Jesus Taught
As already suggested by our reference to "show and tell," Jesus teaches contexutally and concretely, from the immediate surroundings, if possible, or at least from events of ordinary life. This is seen in his well known use of the parable - which, from its origin in the Greek word paraballein literally means to throw one thing down alongside another. Parables are not just pretty stories that are easy to remember; rather, they help us understand something difficult by comparing it to, placing it beside, something with which we are very familiar, and always something concrete, specific.
Jesus' "concrete" method of teaching goes far beyond use of parables, however. You see it also in the way in which he captializes upon events that happen around him as he goes about his work. On one occasion as he teaches, for example, a man calls out from the crowd, asking him to make his brother divide their inheritance and give him his part so he can start living. Jesus responds with a story about a person who has all the wealth he desires - and yet has nothing (Luke 12).
Which leads me to ask, Why is it that so often we think teaching must deal with something deep and opaque? Why must we teach in propositions, proof texts and abstractions? That isn't how Jesus taught. He taught from the concrete to the abstract, from the real to the immaterial.
We need to employ the same devices Jesus did in our teaching in order to convey not just information but adoption of the concepts we are teaching including:
story
object lessons
current events
personal illustrations
Only then can we hope to convey a relevant, contemporary message of timeless truth.
As already suggested by our reference to "show and tell," Jesus teaches contexutally and concretely, from the immediate surroundings, if possible, or at least from events of ordinary life. This is seen in his well known use of the parable - which, from its origin in the Greek word paraballein literally means to throw one thing down alongside another. Parables are not just pretty stories that are easy to remember; rather, they help us understand something difficult by comparing it to, placing it beside, something with which we are very familiar, and always something concrete, specific.
Jesus' "concrete" method of teaching goes far beyond use of parables, however. You see it also in the way in which he captializes upon events that happen around him as he goes about his work. On one occasion as he teaches, for example, a man calls out from the crowd, asking him to make his brother divide their inheritance and give him his part so he can start living. Jesus responds with a story about a person who has all the wealth he desires - and yet has nothing (Luke 12).
Which leads me to ask, Why is it that so often we think teaching must deal with something deep and opaque? Why must we teach in propositions, proof texts and abstractions? That isn't how Jesus taught. He taught from the concrete to the abstract, from the real to the immaterial.
We need to employ the same devices Jesus did in our teaching in order to convey not just information but adoption of the concepts we are teaching including:
story
object lessons
current events
personal illustrations
Only then can we hope to convey a relevant, contemporary message of timeless truth.
9.10.2003
Pomo Rumblings
Got this from Buff Scott's "Reformation Rumblings" today and thought it worthy of posting since it corresponds so well with Dan Kimball's the Emergent Church and Andrew Careaga's eMinistry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. “Buff, insofar as ‘religion’ is concerned, how do you see our younger Christian generation? Are they progressing or regressing”---Alice.<>
A. Our younger generation, especially those of our own divisive parties, are investigating, exploring, and seeking answers to the meaning and purpose of life. And what are we offering them? A pew on which to sit, collection plates into which to dump their money, and a stale and heartless sermon on “Instrumental Music” or “The Identity of the Church.” Their restlessness stems from their dissatisfaction with organized religion. They are tired of the obsessive feeling of terror and of being lost. They want the love and assurance that can come only from a warm and understanding God. They are aware that these golden elements are difficult to find within the confines of organized religion.
Sharing with others the theology of Jesus “at the well” or “by the riverside” may prove more encouraging and enlightening than warming a seat in one of our grand palaces every time the doors open and the bells ring. The time has come when worship and work are anytime and the place where we are (John 4:21-24).
Got this from Buff Scott's "Reformation Rumblings" today and thought it worthy of posting since it corresponds so well with Dan Kimball's the Emergent Church and Andrew Careaga's eMinistry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. “Buff, insofar as ‘religion’ is concerned, how do you see our younger Christian generation? Are they progressing or regressing”---Alice.<>
A. Our younger generation, especially those of our own divisive parties, are investigating, exploring, and seeking answers to the meaning and purpose of life. And what are we offering them? A pew on which to sit, collection plates into which to dump their money, and a stale and heartless sermon on “Instrumental Music” or “The Identity of the Church.” Their restlessness stems from their dissatisfaction with organized religion. They are tired of the obsessive feeling of terror and of being lost. They want the love and assurance that can come only from a warm and understanding God. They are aware that these golden elements are difficult to find within the confines of organized religion.
Sharing with others the theology of Jesus “at the well” or “by the riverside” may prove more encouraging and enlightening than warming a seat in one of our grand palaces every time the doors open and the bells ring. The time has come when worship and work are anytime and the place where we are (John 4:21-24).
9.09.2003
Orson Scott Card continues on p. 312:
"It's easy to tell the truth," said Mother softly, "when you don't love anybody."
"Is that waht you think?" said Ela. "I think I know something, Mother. I think you can't possibly know the truth about somebody unless you love them....
Can we really tell the truth about someone without loving them? We may say true things about them, but to tell the truth is something altogether different. Gossip may be true things, but that doesn't mean it is the truth about someone.
Is this why Jesus says, "I am the way the truth and the life?" Does he know that the only we we can truly know the truth, not just about him, but about everything, is to love him first? And what of us? Does Jesus know us in truth because he loves us, because he loves everything true about us, even when we are too fearful to face it? What a concept to ponder.
"It's easy to tell the truth," said Mother softly, "when you don't love anybody."
"Is that waht you think?" said Ela. "I think I know something, Mother. I think you can't possibly know the truth about somebody unless you love them....
Can we really tell the truth about someone without loving them? We may say true things about them, but to tell the truth is something altogether different. Gossip may be true things, but that doesn't mean it is the truth about someone.
Is this why Jesus says, "I am the way the truth and the life?" Does he know that the only we we can truly know the truth, not just about him, but about everything, is to love him first? And what of us? Does Jesus know us in truth because he loves us, because he loves everything true about us, even when we are too fearful to face it? What a concept to ponder.
9.08.2003
On pg. 257 we see the following conversation snip:
"Why are they so stupid?.. Not to know the truth when they hear it?
"They aren't stupid," said the Speaker. "This is how humans are: We question all our beliefs, except for the ones we really believe, and those we never think to question...."
So let us ask ourselves:
What belief am I not questioning?
What am I clinging to so tightly that I refuse to examine it critically?
Why is this so important? Because those beliefs we don't question are the ones we are blind to. They are the ones we don't even know we hold to, the ones we never think to question, examine, doubt. As a result we are closed to truth that contradicts these firmly held beliefs.
If I were a first century Pharisee my undoubtable beliefs would be in a triumphant political messiah and my own rigtheousness affording me a place in heaven. My encounter with Jesus would force me, not to confront my own wrong assumptions and beliefs but this "pretender" who can't possibly be the messiah because he doesn't match up with what I never think to doubt.
Now if this was true of the Pharisees, then I must ask myself, what beliefs do I cling to that prevent me from seeing Jesus Christ for who he is? What belief am I clinging to so tightly that, like the Pharisees, I can't know the truth even when I hear it?
"Why are they so stupid?.. Not to know the truth when they hear it?
"They aren't stupid," said the Speaker. "This is how humans are: We question all our beliefs, except for the ones we really believe, and those we never think to question...."
So let us ask ourselves:
What belief am I not questioning?
What am I clinging to so tightly that I refuse to examine it critically?
Why is this so important? Because those beliefs we don't question are the ones we are blind to. They are the ones we don't even know we hold to, the ones we never think to question, examine, doubt. As a result we are closed to truth that contradicts these firmly held beliefs.
If I were a first century Pharisee my undoubtable beliefs would be in a triumphant political messiah and my own rigtheousness affording me a place in heaven. My encounter with Jesus would force me, not to confront my own wrong assumptions and beliefs but this "pretender" who can't possibly be the messiah because he doesn't match up with what I never think to doubt.
Now if this was true of the Pharisees, then I must ask myself, what beliefs do I cling to that prevent me from seeing Jesus Christ for who he is? What belief am I clinging to so tightly that, like the Pharisees, I can't know the truth even when I hear it?
9.07.2003
And on p. 248 comes one of the most compelling exchanges in this part of Speaker for the Dead:
"...We've always tried to play along with it, and act as if we believed it."
"How condescending of you," said Ender.
"It's standard anthroplogical practice," said Miro.
"You're so busy pretending to believe them, there isn't a chance in the world you could learn anything from them."
For a moment they lagged behind, so that he actually entered the forest alone. Then they ran to catch up with him. "We've devoted our lives to learning about them!" Miro said.
Ender stopped. "Not from them." They were just inside the trees; the spotty light through the leaves made their faces unreadable. But he knew what their faces would tell him. Annoyance, resentment, contept - how dare this unqualified stanger question their professional attitude? This is how: "You're cultural supremacists to the core. You'll perform your Questionable Activities (legally proscribed transfers of human culture to the indigenous planetary natives) to help out the poor little piggies, but there isn't a chance in the world you'll notice when they have something to teach you."
I am ambivalent about the concept that in order to truly learn something, one must first believe in it. I don't think this is an either/or so much as a self-reinforcing dynamic. The more I believe, the more I learn which allows me to stretch my belief even more and so on. By the same token, how do I know I believe enough to learn?
I see myriad applications for this:
Jesus didn't tell us to understand him, he told us to believe him. And not just believe propostions about him but to believe Him personally. We can't really know Jesus unless we believe Him.
The other side of the coin is to feel so sanctimonious that we relegate the beliefs of others which may seem naive to our "enlightened" viewpoint to superstitious affectation. This prevents us from learning from them. Perhaps (and probably more likely) the naive faith of an elderly saint in the power of prayer does have a basis in experience and we would do well to listen to what she has to say. We don't experience the same power in prayer as she does becuase we are so busy analyzing the experience, we aren't even having it.
Or those who naively believe the Bible means what it says. And they experience a consolation from the Word that we can only long for.
Or those who naively have a quiet confidence in their acceptance of Jesus that frees them from the doubts and anguish that higher theologians torture themselves over.
Are we such Christian cultural supremacists that we dismiss those of "lesser" faith and as a result, fail to learn what we most need to know?
"...We've always tried to play along with it, and act as if we believed it."
"How condescending of you," said Ender.
"It's standard anthroplogical practice," said Miro.
"You're so busy pretending to believe them, there isn't a chance in the world you could learn anything from them."
For a moment they lagged behind, so that he actually entered the forest alone. Then they ran to catch up with him. "We've devoted our lives to learning about them!" Miro said.
Ender stopped. "Not from them." They were just inside the trees; the spotty light through the leaves made their faces unreadable. But he knew what their faces would tell him. Annoyance, resentment, contept - how dare this unqualified stanger question their professional attitude? This is how: "You're cultural supremacists to the core. You'll perform your Questionable Activities (legally proscribed transfers of human culture to the indigenous planetary natives) to help out the poor little piggies, but there isn't a chance in the world you'll notice when they have something to teach you."
I am ambivalent about the concept that in order to truly learn something, one must first believe in it. I don't think this is an either/or so much as a self-reinforcing dynamic. The more I believe, the more I learn which allows me to stretch my belief even more and so on. By the same token, how do I know I believe enough to learn?
I see myriad applications for this:
Jesus didn't tell us to understand him, he told us to believe him. And not just believe propostions about him but to believe Him personally. We can't really know Jesus unless we believe Him.
The other side of the coin is to feel so sanctimonious that we relegate the beliefs of others which may seem naive to our "enlightened" viewpoint to superstitious affectation. This prevents us from learning from them. Perhaps (and probably more likely) the naive faith of an elderly saint in the power of prayer does have a basis in experience and we would do well to listen to what she has to say. We don't experience the same power in prayer as she does becuase we are so busy analyzing the experience, we aren't even having it.
Or those who naively believe the Bible means what it says. And they experience a consolation from the Word that we can only long for.
Or those who naively have a quiet confidence in their acceptance of Jesus that frees them from the doubts and anguish that higher theologians torture themselves over.
Are we such Christian cultural supremacists that we dismiss those of "lesser" faith and as a result, fail to learn what we most need to know?
9.06.2003
All right. Back on to more Speaker for the Dead commentary. On pg. 247 we have the following quote:
Ouanda's anxiety visibly eased, but her hostility was no less. "You're slick, Senhor Andrew, Speaker for the Dead, you're very clever. You remind them of the Hive Queen (a quasi-religious book that had nearly achieved the status and reverence of the Bible in the "Enderverse") and speak scripture to me out of the side of your mouth."
"I speak to everyone in the language they understand," said Ender. "That isn't being slick. It's being clear."
I hesitate to comment on this since Ender's quote is so pithy it hardly requires exposition. Talking to people in the language they understand is not slick. It is clear. How can we expect the pre-Christian to understand Christianese? If we don't approach them with their language we're liable to not even convey a Christian message, let alone a meaningful one.
The difficulty is even worse because we have dialects of Christianese that are of use only to small segments of the Christian populace, let alone the world at large. Lark News did a segment on one of these that is well worth the read. It out-parodies even Gamaliel.
Speaking of the venerable Pharisee, he should have an article on Christianese coming out that will make even the atheists sit up and take notice so you will want to be looking for more on this topic from him.
The main thing is to understand, like Paul on Mars' Hill, that in order to be clear our communication must be understood.
Ouanda's anxiety visibly eased, but her hostility was no less. "You're slick, Senhor Andrew, Speaker for the Dead, you're very clever. You remind them of the Hive Queen (a quasi-religious book that had nearly achieved the status and reverence of the Bible in the "Enderverse") and speak scripture to me out of the side of your mouth."
"I speak to everyone in the language they understand," said Ender. "That isn't being slick. It's being clear."
I hesitate to comment on this since Ender's quote is so pithy it hardly requires exposition. Talking to people in the language they understand is not slick. It is clear. How can we expect the pre-Christian to understand Christianese? If we don't approach them with their language we're liable to not even convey a Christian message, let alone a meaningful one.
The difficulty is even worse because we have dialects of Christianese that are of use only to small segments of the Christian populace, let alone the world at large. Lark News did a segment on one of these that is well worth the read. It out-parodies even Gamaliel.
Speaking of the venerable Pharisee, he should have an article on Christianese coming out that will make even the atheists sit up and take notice so you will want to be looking for more on this topic from him.
The main thing is to understand, like Paul on Mars' Hill, that in order to be clear our communication must be understood.
9.05.2003
From the Desk of Gamaliel
To: My Students
RE: Pricking the Conscience
I have a number of young Pharisee pastors on this list and I feel it is time for me to give them some special advice. These youngsters just entering the pastoral ministry face many pitfalls from the emerging church movement and it is important to give them the right tools to combat the deceptive ways of these pretenders. The most important tool at the disposal of the young Pharisee pastor is the tender conscience of his church members. God has made people sensitive to the leading of Spiritual mentors (such as myself) through the use of a carefully crafted instrument, designed to prick the conscience – guilt.
It is the job of the Pharisee pastor to maintain a tender conscience in the hearts of his people. He does this by the frequent application of guilt to keep people sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit in their lives. If it were not for our preaching on spiritual issues of importance in their lives, who knows where these people would be?
In order to be effective, however, the young Pharisee pastor must never use the word “guilt.” This will prepare the listener to harden his heart against the goading of his conscience. Instead, the skilled Pharisee pastor employs such terms as “Christian Living” or “Separated Living” or the old standby, “Sanctification.” The primary purpose of these terms is to bring people to the realization that their spirituality is inadequate or doesn’t measure up to a Biblical standard. Naturally, the question arises, how do we effectively employ guilt to keep people on the “straight and narrow” and out of harm’s way? Here are a few suggestions:
Make them feel guilty about their personal devotions. Your role is to impress them with the inadequate amount of time they spend in devotions and the shallowness of their devotional content. Don’t let them know that your devotional time is, at most, three minutes spent reading “Our Daily Bread” online at www.odb.org. Make sure you don’t let on that you skip the scripture reference since you already know what the Bible says and only read the cute story. You can get them to believe that you spend at least an hour per day in contemplative meditation by dropping hints frequently about your devotional content.
Make them feel guilty for not reading their Bibles enough. Let them know that you consider time in the Word to be the most important thing in their Christian lives. But make sure they never find out that you only read it for sermon preparation. Emphasize that they need to read the Bible all the way through at least once a year even though you only read the interesting parts yourself. So much of the Bible is boring and difficult to get through that there really is no point in reading it all. Besides, the New Testament and a few cautionary, moralistic tales from the Old Testament are all that one really needs to be an effective preacher. Your job is to bring about a profound sense of guilt for not reading through the Bible in a year even though you have never read the whole thing through yourself, let alone done it in a year. This may sound hypocritical on the surface but the fact is, they aren’t going to read much of it either. The point isn’t so much to get them to read the whole Bible (who would ever really do that?) but to make them feel guilty for not reading it enough. You aren’t looking for them to actually read the Bible; but to be sensitive to your leading because you read the Bible a lot more than they do. That’s all that really matters – reading the Bible more than your people. And pray that no one in your church ever does read the whole Bible because there are some parts in there that could lead to some pretty embarrassing questions.
Make them feel guilty for not sharing their faith. They need to do more witnessing and personal evangelism so they should feel justifiably guilty about this. Read to them how God will be ashamed of them in the day of Judgment if they are ashamed of him here on this earth and then challenge them to think of the last time they shared their faith with anyone. As a preacher this is fairly easy for you to do because that clergy bumper sticker on the back of your car is a constant witness. The key is to always talk about witnessing and soul winning and leading the lost to Christ, but never let them see you do it yourself. If they find out how to do this on their own, they may start evangelizing and leading people to Jesus whom we would rather not see in church at all (winos, prostitutes, homosexuals, young people with tattoos, etc.) This is rather easy for most Pharisee pastors. Soul winning occupies so little of a preacher’s time because we are so busy with other, more important matters. One of the most significant ways you can contribute to their guilt is to teach them soul winning by hosting classes, not modeling and mentoring like Jesus did. “The Master Plan of Evangelism” by Robert Coleman, may be a Christian classic, but you are better off keeping it on the bookshelf instead of putting it into practice. Your job is to pontificate and instruct them how to witness, not demonstrate and exhibit good personal evangelism.
Finally, make them feel guilty for not spending nearly enough time and effort in prayer. This is the most potent means of instilling guilt in Christians. What person can ever say they spend enough time in prayer? To make things even easier on the Pharisee pastor, they often ask why their prayers go unanswered. You have a whole list of guilt-laden reasons for their failure:
• They didn’t ask in faith or with enough faith.
• They asked with the wrong motive – self-gratification instead of the glory of the Lord.
• They had unconfessed sin in their lives.
• They didn’t pray long enough or hard enough.
• They have an undiagnosed spiritual defect.
The possible reasons for unanswered prayer are as boundless as your imagination. Best of all, we can cite Biblical examples for most of these reasons as “proof” that we know what we are talking about. Never admit that you have experienced unanswered prayer unless it was some time in the distant past, as if you have outgrown that stage in your spirituality. However, you must always be honest with your church members, so the best way to make sure that you never have unanswered prayers is to never ask God for anything. Well, you can ask for world peace, the triumph of the Kingdom, the relief of the poor and the healing of the sick; but never ask for anything specifically. That way you will never be disappointed by failure. Your role is to make them feel that there is something wrong with them spiritually because they don’t experience the success in prayer that you do.
Gamaliel/RJP
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”
Matthew 23:1-4 (NIV)
To: My Students
RE: Pricking the Conscience
I have a number of young Pharisee pastors on this list and I feel it is time for me to give them some special advice. These youngsters just entering the pastoral ministry face many pitfalls from the emerging church movement and it is important to give them the right tools to combat the deceptive ways of these pretenders. The most important tool at the disposal of the young Pharisee pastor is the tender conscience of his church members. God has made people sensitive to the leading of Spiritual mentors (such as myself) through the use of a carefully crafted instrument, designed to prick the conscience – guilt.
It is the job of the Pharisee pastor to maintain a tender conscience in the hearts of his people. He does this by the frequent application of guilt to keep people sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit in their lives. If it were not for our preaching on spiritual issues of importance in their lives, who knows where these people would be?
In order to be effective, however, the young Pharisee pastor must never use the word “guilt.” This will prepare the listener to harden his heart against the goading of his conscience. Instead, the skilled Pharisee pastor employs such terms as “Christian Living” or “Separated Living” or the old standby, “Sanctification.” The primary purpose of these terms is to bring people to the realization that their spirituality is inadequate or doesn’t measure up to a Biblical standard. Naturally, the question arises, how do we effectively employ guilt to keep people on the “straight and narrow” and out of harm’s way? Here are a few suggestions:
Make them feel guilty about their personal devotions. Your role is to impress them with the inadequate amount of time they spend in devotions and the shallowness of their devotional content. Don’t let them know that your devotional time is, at most, three minutes spent reading “Our Daily Bread” online at www.odb.org. Make sure you don’t let on that you skip the scripture reference since you already know what the Bible says and only read the cute story. You can get them to believe that you spend at least an hour per day in contemplative meditation by dropping hints frequently about your devotional content.
Make them feel guilty for not reading their Bibles enough. Let them know that you consider time in the Word to be the most important thing in their Christian lives. But make sure they never find out that you only read it for sermon preparation. Emphasize that they need to read the Bible all the way through at least once a year even though you only read the interesting parts yourself. So much of the Bible is boring and difficult to get through that there really is no point in reading it all. Besides, the New Testament and a few cautionary, moralistic tales from the Old Testament are all that one really needs to be an effective preacher. Your job is to bring about a profound sense of guilt for not reading through the Bible in a year even though you have never read the whole thing through yourself, let alone done it in a year. This may sound hypocritical on the surface but the fact is, they aren’t going to read much of it either. The point isn’t so much to get them to read the whole Bible (who would ever really do that?) but to make them feel guilty for not reading it enough. You aren’t looking for them to actually read the Bible; but to be sensitive to your leading because you read the Bible a lot more than they do. That’s all that really matters – reading the Bible more than your people. And pray that no one in your church ever does read the whole Bible because there are some parts in there that could lead to some pretty embarrassing questions.
Make them feel guilty for not sharing their faith. They need to do more witnessing and personal evangelism so they should feel justifiably guilty about this. Read to them how God will be ashamed of them in the day of Judgment if they are ashamed of him here on this earth and then challenge them to think of the last time they shared their faith with anyone. As a preacher this is fairly easy for you to do because that clergy bumper sticker on the back of your car is a constant witness. The key is to always talk about witnessing and soul winning and leading the lost to Christ, but never let them see you do it yourself. If they find out how to do this on their own, they may start evangelizing and leading people to Jesus whom we would rather not see in church at all (winos, prostitutes, homosexuals, young people with tattoos, etc.) This is rather easy for most Pharisee pastors. Soul winning occupies so little of a preacher’s time because we are so busy with other, more important matters. One of the most significant ways you can contribute to their guilt is to teach them soul winning by hosting classes, not modeling and mentoring like Jesus did. “The Master Plan of Evangelism” by Robert Coleman, may be a Christian classic, but you are better off keeping it on the bookshelf instead of putting it into practice. Your job is to pontificate and instruct them how to witness, not demonstrate and exhibit good personal evangelism.
Finally, make them feel guilty for not spending nearly enough time and effort in prayer. This is the most potent means of instilling guilt in Christians. What person can ever say they spend enough time in prayer? To make things even easier on the Pharisee pastor, they often ask why their prayers go unanswered. You have a whole list of guilt-laden reasons for their failure:
• They didn’t ask in faith or with enough faith.
• They asked with the wrong motive – self-gratification instead of the glory of the Lord.
• They had unconfessed sin in their lives.
• They didn’t pray long enough or hard enough.
• They have an undiagnosed spiritual defect.
The possible reasons for unanswered prayer are as boundless as your imagination. Best of all, we can cite Biblical examples for most of these reasons as “proof” that we know what we are talking about. Never admit that you have experienced unanswered prayer unless it was some time in the distant past, as if you have outgrown that stage in your spirituality. However, you must always be honest with your church members, so the best way to make sure that you never have unanswered prayers is to never ask God for anything. Well, you can ask for world peace, the triumph of the Kingdom, the relief of the poor and the healing of the sick; but never ask for anything specifically. That way you will never be disappointed by failure. Your role is to make them feel that there is something wrong with them spiritually because they don’t experience the success in prayer that you do.
Gamaliel/RJP
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”
Matthew 23:1-4 (NIV)
9.04.2003
You can tell from the new addition to the bookshelf that I've started another book. The Emerging Church by Dan Kimball is a must-read for anyone wanting to engage the culture. Even though I have just started it, I have found it engaging, thought-provoking and stimulating.
But not for the reasons you might guess.
I have been so far removed from the internecine squabbling among posturing ministers more interested in making a name than making a mark in the world that I have forgotton what all the fuss is about. I'm busy raising children in a postmodern, post-seeker sensitive, post-Christian society that I don't even have time to notice that it is such.
Francis Schaeffer told us in the 1970's that we are in a post-Christian culture and had been for years. 25 years later, the Culture Warriors are cluing into this fact with alarm.
Duh.
The "revelation" that we are a post-Christian country seems to profoundly shock those emerging from the near-Amish paridise of 1950's evangelicalism. They are waging a war on the wrong grounds, trying to defend the assertion that at one time we were a Christian nation and we need to get back to our roots.
Give it a rest.
We can't bring back the past no matter how hard we or the Amish try. We must move into the future. The question is whether we are going to engage it, dialogue with it, meet it on God's terms and be missionaries to the future or are we going to hermetically seal ourselves off in a Christian ghetto that embraces the 1970's, not nostalgically but as revolutionary? Seriously. There are churches today that consider themselves progressive because they have emerged from the 1950's and now have guitars, tamborines and drums (well, not drums) in church.
Even if they incorporated "modern" styles, they still miss the conceptual boat.
So what am I doing? Well, I'm reading what the emergent thinkers are talking about, shaking my head in wonder because these people are finding the changing world around them remarkable. Adventures in Missing the Point was the most instructive book in this series, especially the chapter on Missing the Point: Postmodern Christianity. It says if we sit around and talk about being pomo, then we've missed the whole point. It isn't about labels and categories.
It's about doing what needs to be done in a way that is effective.
But not for the reasons you might guess.
I have been so far removed from the internecine squabbling among posturing ministers more interested in making a name than making a mark in the world that I have forgotton what all the fuss is about. I'm busy raising children in a postmodern, post-seeker sensitive, post-Christian society that I don't even have time to notice that it is such.
Francis Schaeffer told us in the 1970's that we are in a post-Christian culture and had been for years. 25 years later, the Culture Warriors are cluing into this fact with alarm.
Duh.
The "revelation" that we are a post-Christian country seems to profoundly shock those emerging from the near-Amish paridise of 1950's evangelicalism. They are waging a war on the wrong grounds, trying to defend the assertion that at one time we were a Christian nation and we need to get back to our roots.
Give it a rest.
We can't bring back the past no matter how hard we or the Amish try. We must move into the future. The question is whether we are going to engage it, dialogue with it, meet it on God's terms and be missionaries to the future or are we going to hermetically seal ourselves off in a Christian ghetto that embraces the 1970's, not nostalgically but as revolutionary? Seriously. There are churches today that consider themselves progressive because they have emerged from the 1950's and now have guitars, tamborines and drums (well, not drums) in church.
Even if they incorporated "modern" styles, they still miss the conceptual boat.
So what am I doing? Well, I'm reading what the emergent thinkers are talking about, shaking my head in wonder because these people are finding the changing world around them remarkable. Adventures in Missing the Point was the most instructive book in this series, especially the chapter on Missing the Point: Postmodern Christianity. It says if we sit around and talk about being pomo, then we've missed the whole point. It isn't about labels and categories.
It's about doing what needs to be done in a way that is effective.
9.03.2003
Continuing through Speaker we come upon this passage strangely reminiscent of James 5:
"I should have gone to him," Ela said again.
"Yes," the Spearker said. "You should have."
A strange thing happened then. The Speaker agreed with her that she had made a mistake that night, and she knew when he said the words that it was true, that his judgment was correct. And yet she felt strangely healed, as if simply saying her mistake were enough to purge some of the pain of it. For the first time, then, she caught a glimpse of what the power of Speaking might be. It wasn't a matter of confession, penance, and absolution, like the priests offered. it was soemthing else entirely. Telling the story of who she was and then realizing that she was no longer the same person. That she had made a mistake, and the mistake had changed her, and now she would not make the mistake again because she had become someone else, someone less afraid, someone more compassionate.
If I'm not that frightened girl who heard her brother in desparate pain and dared not go to him, who am I? But the water flowing through the grillwork under the fence held no answers. Maybe she couldn't know who she was today. Maybe it was enough to know that she was no longer who she was before.
I long for the purity and beauty of Genesis 2 where the man and the woman are naked and not ashamed. If only we could bare ourselves to one another without shame, what beauty that would be.
But in a fallen world, that cannot be. We are too ugly, too malformed, too bent, too broken and hideous to look upon in all our nakedness for who we really are. Why? What do we fear? We fear the loss of our associations if everyone knew who we really are.
On the other hand, telling the truth about ourself is so liberating. Blackmail has force because we do not want the truth out. But if we put the truth out about ourselves a number of things happen:
We no longer fear the truth because it is there for everyone to see.
We no longer fear others finding that we are not what we seem for now we are.
We no longer hide behind our fig leaves hoping to escape notice but admit to our condition.
We no longer want to continue in that condition but as Ela discovers, we find that we are no longer that person. We have grown. We have changed. We may not know what we are, even in Christ. But we certainly know what we were and we also certainly know we are not that person any longer.
And somehow that is enough.
"I should have gone to him," Ela said again.
"Yes," the Spearker said. "You should have."
A strange thing happened then. The Speaker agreed with her that she had made a mistake that night, and she knew when he said the words that it was true, that his judgment was correct. And yet she felt strangely healed, as if simply saying her mistake were enough to purge some of the pain of it. For the first time, then, she caught a glimpse of what the power of Speaking might be. It wasn't a matter of confession, penance, and absolution, like the priests offered. it was soemthing else entirely. Telling the story of who she was and then realizing that she was no longer the same person. That she had made a mistake, and the mistake had changed her, and now she would not make the mistake again because she had become someone else, someone less afraid, someone more compassionate.
If I'm not that frightened girl who heard her brother in desparate pain and dared not go to him, who am I? But the water flowing through the grillwork under the fence held no answers. Maybe she couldn't know who she was today. Maybe it was enough to know that she was no longer who she was before.
I long for the purity and beauty of Genesis 2 where the man and the woman are naked and not ashamed. If only we could bare ourselves to one another without shame, what beauty that would be.
But in a fallen world, that cannot be. We are too ugly, too malformed, too bent, too broken and hideous to look upon in all our nakedness for who we really are. Why? What do we fear? We fear the loss of our associations if everyone knew who we really are.
On the other hand, telling the truth about ourself is so liberating. Blackmail has force because we do not want the truth out. But if we put the truth out about ourselves a number of things happen:
We no longer fear the truth because it is there for everyone to see.
We no longer fear others finding that we are not what we seem for now we are.
We no longer hide behind our fig leaves hoping to escape notice but admit to our condition.
We no longer want to continue in that condition but as Ela discovers, we find that we are no longer that person. We have grown. We have changed. We may not know what we are, even in Christ. But we certainly know what we were and we also certainly know we are not that person any longer.
And somehow that is enough.
9.02.2003
As The Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card continues the researchers are prohibited by their off-world superiors from communicating with the "piggies" in a way that allows them to transmit information to them about humans. Even asking questions runs the risk of giving them clues into the structure of human socies. One of the researchers comments to his fellows on the burdensome rules applied to them and how it blinds off-world researchers. He says:
You must remind yourselves, always: It is their law, their choice. They are the ones who built the wall between themselves and the truth, and they would only punish us if we let them know how easily and thoroughly that wall has been breached. And for every framling (off-worlder) scientist who is longing for the truth, there are ten petty-minded descabecados [headless ones] who despise knowledge, who never think of an original hypothesis, whose only labor is to prey on the writings of the true scientists in order to catch tiny errors or contradictions or lapses in method. These sukflies will pore over every report you make, and if you are careless even once they will catch you.
This summarizes the approach of so many fundies I know. I've been getting posts from a couple of indy fundy Baptists who personify the sentiment above. They are not out in the field sowing seed, cultivating, fertilizing or even reaping. They are leaning over the fence pointing fingers at the laborers in the field and criticizing them for their flaws, their methods, their shortcomings, their weaknesses. They would never toss so much as a grain of wheat to the ground, but just listen to them harangue the ones who are bringing in the sheaves.
I just finished a long diatribe by one of their ilk who blasted Rick Warren & Saddleback church for all that was wrong with it. Rather than actually do something on his own, this critic found fault with what Warren was doing. Why? To what end? For what purpose? To whose glory? I am baffled by it all.
At the heart of an anti-Pharisee ministry, it is so easy to look up from the chores of the day and harangue back. It is so tempting to berate the beraters for berating us. But that isn't what we are called to do. I serve not my Master's purpose if I chase them away from my fence, for my task is to work in the field. If I am not cultivating and nurting the young seedlings or brining in the sheaves or sowing seed on freshly turned soil, then I have become one of them. May the Lord help me to keep my goal in mind as I prepare for the harvest and leave the critics to their criticism.
You must remind yourselves, always: It is their law, their choice. They are the ones who built the wall between themselves and the truth, and they would only punish us if we let them know how easily and thoroughly that wall has been breached. And for every framling (off-worlder) scientist who is longing for the truth, there are ten petty-minded descabecados [headless ones] who despise knowledge, who never think of an original hypothesis, whose only labor is to prey on the writings of the true scientists in order to catch tiny errors or contradictions or lapses in method. These sukflies will pore over every report you make, and if you are careless even once they will catch you.
This summarizes the approach of so many fundies I know. I've been getting posts from a couple of indy fundy Baptists who personify the sentiment above. They are not out in the field sowing seed, cultivating, fertilizing or even reaping. They are leaning over the fence pointing fingers at the laborers in the field and criticizing them for their flaws, their methods, their shortcomings, their weaknesses. They would never toss so much as a grain of wheat to the ground, but just listen to them harangue the ones who are bringing in the sheaves.
I just finished a long diatribe by one of their ilk who blasted Rick Warren & Saddleback church for all that was wrong with it. Rather than actually do something on his own, this critic found fault with what Warren was doing. Why? To what end? For what purpose? To whose glory? I am baffled by it all.
At the heart of an anti-Pharisee ministry, it is so easy to look up from the chores of the day and harangue back. It is so tempting to berate the beraters for berating us. But that isn't what we are called to do. I serve not my Master's purpose if I chase them away from my fence, for my task is to work in the field. If I am not cultivating and nurting the young seedlings or brining in the sheaves or sowing seed on freshly turned soil, then I have become one of them. May the Lord help me to keep my goal in mind as I prepare for the harvest and leave the critics to their criticism.
9.01.2003
Speaker for the Dead is the second in a series of books written by Orson Scott Card, an award-winning science fiction author. Card is a Mormon and much of what he writes is infused with this background, experience and theology. This does not detract from the fact that he has some good insights and asks powerful questions. The book centers on a colony of humans on the planet Lusitania who are living with an indigenous sentient life form they nicknamed the “piggies” because of their facial resemblance to swine. The following is a conversation between Ender Wiggin, The Speaker for the Dead, and the colony’s governor.
“This is a quarantined world, Speaker. The amaranth (a food crop) is so well-suited to this environment that it would soon choke out the native grasses. The idea is not to terraform Lusitania. The idea is to have as little impact on this world as possible.”
“That must be hard on the people.”
“Within our enclave, Speaker, we are free and our lives are full. And outside the fence – no one wants to go there, anyway.”
The tone of her voice was heavy with concealed emotion. Ender knew, then, that the fear of the piggies ran deep.
“Speaker, I know you’re thinking that we’re afraid of the piggies. And perhaps some of us are. But the feeling most of us have most of the time, isn’t fear at all. It’s hatred. Loathing.”
“You’ve never seen them.”
While Card may have seen this from his Mormon background of a group of solitary Believers heading west to find sanctuary and build a Mormon state, the applications go much broader than that. There are a couple of thoughts that I find in the above passage that relate to my fundy background.
The first is the idea of living in an enclave, a “Christian ghetto” as we call it now. We have the seeds within us to impact the wider world at large with a life-transforming gospel but for some reason we find it necessary to stay within our enclaves and protect it. The idea is not to Christianize the world but to have as little impact on the world as possible. Like the Amish. Like many sections of the denomination that retreat behind a fence.
The second idea is the concept that living inside the fence provides freedom. By minimizing our contact with the wider world, we achieve a measure of safety but it comes at a cost. That cost is the restrictions we place on ourselves. To cover for that, we content ourselves with living inside the fence, the enclave, the ghetto, and tell ourselves that we are free. The truth is, we are constricted by the boundaries we place around ourselves and miss out on God’s greater blessings because we fear those “outside.”
Third is the last sentence. We know all about people “living in the world” or “living in sin” but we are only fooling ourselves. Most of us have never seen them. Oh, we catch a glimpse of them, we have a mental picture of them, we identify our stereotypes and our caricatures, but we have never seen THEM. They are individuals; they are people. We, like the disciples, lose the message of the gospel in seeking to call down fire on them, when Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost. If we would SEE them, then we would love them and leave our fence to take the gospel to them.
“This is a quarantined world, Speaker. The amaranth (a food crop) is so well-suited to this environment that it would soon choke out the native grasses. The idea is not to terraform Lusitania. The idea is to have as little impact on this world as possible.”
“That must be hard on the people.”
“Within our enclave, Speaker, we are free and our lives are full. And outside the fence – no one wants to go there, anyway.”
The tone of her voice was heavy with concealed emotion. Ender knew, then, that the fear of the piggies ran deep.
“Speaker, I know you’re thinking that we’re afraid of the piggies. And perhaps some of us are. But the feeling most of us have most of the time, isn’t fear at all. It’s hatred. Loathing.”
“You’ve never seen them.”
While Card may have seen this from his Mormon background of a group of solitary Believers heading west to find sanctuary and build a Mormon state, the applications go much broader than that. There are a couple of thoughts that I find in the above passage that relate to my fundy background.
The first is the idea of living in an enclave, a “Christian ghetto” as we call it now. We have the seeds within us to impact the wider world at large with a life-transforming gospel but for some reason we find it necessary to stay within our enclaves and protect it. The idea is not to Christianize the world but to have as little impact on the world as possible. Like the Amish. Like many sections of the denomination that retreat behind a fence.
The second idea is the concept that living inside the fence provides freedom. By minimizing our contact with the wider world, we achieve a measure of safety but it comes at a cost. That cost is the restrictions we place on ourselves. To cover for that, we content ourselves with living inside the fence, the enclave, the ghetto, and tell ourselves that we are free. The truth is, we are constricted by the boundaries we place around ourselves and miss out on God’s greater blessings because we fear those “outside.”
Third is the last sentence. We know all about people “living in the world” or “living in sin” but we are only fooling ourselves. Most of us have never seen them. Oh, we catch a glimpse of them, we have a mental picture of them, we identify our stereotypes and our caricatures, but we have never seen THEM. They are individuals; they are people. We, like the disciples, lose the message of the gospel in seeking to call down fire on them, when Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost. If we would SEE them, then we would love them and leave our fence to take the gospel to them.
