8.31.2004
Baptist Distinctive
This is from a Baptist discussion group I'm on. I was posting about our need to be active in the social aspects of the gospel and this is part of the reply I received. From a Baptist preacher. Someone who is called to minister to others.
Maybe you can straighten me out on a matter here. I see a need when someone is starving or dying of a disease but I am not sure what my part should be in reliving someone whose own depravity has gotten them in to a needful situation. As to single mothers in the black population, one of the biggest motivations for this is the Gov't benefits that are taken away when a mother marries the father. Benefits that I am not sure should be there to begin with. A bread line at your church would, to me, be more scriptural. (emphasis mine)
Kinda makes me embarrassed to be called a Baptist some times.
This is from a Baptist discussion group I'm on. I was posting about our need to be active in the social aspects of the gospel and this is part of the reply I received. From a Baptist preacher. Someone who is called to minister to others.
Maybe you can straighten me out on a matter here. I see a need when someone is starving or dying of a disease but I am not sure what my part should be in reliving someone whose own depravity has gotten them in to a needful situation. As to single mothers in the black population, one of the biggest motivations for this is the Gov't benefits that are taken away when a mother marries the father. Benefits that I am not sure should be there to begin with. A bread line at your church would, to me, be more scriptural. (emphasis mine)
Kinda makes me embarrassed to be called a Baptist some times.
8.30.2004
Whoda thunk it?
I continue to be approached by Mark to stretch my ministry outreach. He is trying to involve me in an outreach ministry to preserver black families. Why he wants a white boy to preach to black men to get and stay married to their women and raise their children is beyond me. The fact that I believe in the mission is one thing, but will I have street cred?
The future is yet to be written.
I will keep everyone posted as to the outcome/progress of this.
Meanwhile, Gamaliel should be back up and running as of this week, now that I have my computer back. Thank you Damien!
I continue to be approached by Mark to stretch my ministry outreach. He is trying to involve me in an outreach ministry to preserver black families. Why he wants a white boy to preach to black men to get and stay married to their women and raise their children is beyond me. The fact that I believe in the mission is one thing, but will I have street cred?
The future is yet to be written.
I will keep everyone posted as to the outcome/progress of this.
Meanwhile, Gamaliel should be back up and running as of this week, now that I have my computer back. Thank you Damien!
8.29.2004
Post-postmodernism - what's next
Much of the conversation in pomoxianity is about out-growing the trap of modernism or moving from modernism and propositionalism into a postmodern deconstruction of prevailing oppressive metanarratives that is no more than the same old stuff that we have come to expect from our modern counterparts.
I think this is the wrong approach.
But old habits die hard.
Let me try an analogy: I have a friend who works at a prison. He walks the same halls the prisoners do. He breathes the same air. He sees the same bars that they do. But there is one big difference - he can leave. He has the keys. The prisoners are bound by the prison and constrained by it. Mike, otoh, employs the prison as a source of income. It may define his career but it doesn't define his life. He comes and goes; he uses it to his advantage but he isn't confined by it, even though it is a prison.
I am much the same way with modernism. To those who are stuck in it, it is a prison, but to those who have the keys, we can come and go at our pleasure. We ought not to view it as something bad - prisons do serve a vital purpose for society - but as something useful for organizing a certain kind of thought into a constructive pattern that achieves definite ends and answers certain questions. I would never advocate that we discard modernism any more than that we abandon the contribution of the Magna Charta just becausewe have a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution. The first is a means to the last, not a structure to confine us.
This is why I am NOT AGAINST even the most fundy of churches. Just because I have outgrown them, doesn't mean they do not have a place in God's kingdom. If I am what I am by the grace of God, then they must be what they are by the same grace of God. And some people need the confines of various stages of fundyism to shelter a nascent faith that can't handle things like uncertainty, doubt and conjecture. But for me to look down my nose at them as less than us, or not as enlightened, or in some way lower than we are is the height of elitism and narcissism. It's not about me - or us. It is about God, and His Kingdom and His Righteousness. And bad-mouthing moderns or Willowback/Saddlecreek folks is as far from kingdom righteousness as I can imagine.
And here's the defect of pomo - by denying hierarchies, it is blind to hierarchies that subsume postmodernism. My background is science so I have no trouble with hierarchical arrangements. Some are merely taxonomical like the cataloguing of biological life into a "Taxonomic Tree" that shows organizational relationships such as kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. Even more useful is chemistry that shows organic hierarchies in both directions from atoms. We can get larger and larger into molecules, compounds, structures, cells, tissues,organs, systems, organisms, families, communities, ecosystems, etc. or smaller and smaller into protons, neutrons and electrons, quarks, bosons, mesons, to supersymmetric strings. But no one argues that"molecules are better than atoms" or that "organs are preferable to tissues" because you can't have the higher form without the lower.
I see postmodernism as a summation of all that has come before, not a replacement for it. And even that is an incomplete statement. Pomo is aKIND of summation and is certainly not the pinnacle of thought. The pomo/mo conflict is like an argument between the Kool-Aid and the sugar as to which has the "right" flavor or makes the largest contribution. We can't have one without the other and they're both swimming in the water, so why see it as a dichotomy? I don't think the mo/pomo split IS a dichotomy, any more than I feel that there is an atom-molecule dichotomy.
Postmoderns who portray things dichotomously are really trustees in the prison. They may think they are different than everyone else, but unlike the guards, they don't have the keys and they are still stuck in theprison. Pomoxians who don't embrace the moderns in their midst are still prisoners of modern thinking, no matter how pomo they claim to be.
So who is up for an integrative form of Christianity that embraces all God's children regardless of where they are as fellow travelers on thejourney from whom we all have much to learn and possibly a little to contribute?
Much of the conversation in pomoxianity is about out-growing the trap of modernism or moving from modernism and propositionalism into a postmodern deconstruction of prevailing oppressive metanarratives that is no more than the same old stuff that we have come to expect from our modern counterparts.
I think this is the wrong approach.
But old habits die hard.
Let me try an analogy: I have a friend who works at a prison. He walks the same halls the prisoners do. He breathes the same air. He sees the same bars that they do. But there is one big difference - he can leave. He has the keys. The prisoners are bound by the prison and constrained by it. Mike, otoh, employs the prison as a source of income. It may define his career but it doesn't define his life. He comes and goes; he uses it to his advantage but he isn't confined by it, even though it is a prison.
I am much the same way with modernism. To those who are stuck in it, it is a prison, but to those who have the keys, we can come and go at our pleasure. We ought not to view it as something bad - prisons do serve a vital purpose for society - but as something useful for organizing a certain kind of thought into a constructive pattern that achieves definite ends and answers certain questions. I would never advocate that we discard modernism any more than that we abandon the contribution of the Magna Charta just becausewe have a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution. The first is a means to the last, not a structure to confine us.
This is why I am NOT AGAINST even the most fundy of churches. Just because I have outgrown them, doesn't mean they do not have a place in God's kingdom. If I am what I am by the grace of God, then they must be what they are by the same grace of God. And some people need the confines of various stages of fundyism to shelter a nascent faith that can't handle things like uncertainty, doubt and conjecture. But for me to look down my nose at them as less than us, or not as enlightened, or in some way lower than we are is the height of elitism and narcissism. It's not about me - or us. It is about God, and His Kingdom and His Righteousness. And bad-mouthing moderns or Willowback/Saddlecreek folks is as far from kingdom righteousness as I can imagine.
And here's the defect of pomo - by denying hierarchies, it is blind to hierarchies that subsume postmodernism. My background is science so I have no trouble with hierarchical arrangements. Some are merely taxonomical like the cataloguing of biological life into a "Taxonomic Tree" that shows organizational relationships such as kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. Even more useful is chemistry that shows organic hierarchies in both directions from atoms. We can get larger and larger into molecules, compounds, structures, cells, tissues,organs, systems, organisms, families, communities, ecosystems, etc. or smaller and smaller into protons, neutrons and electrons, quarks, bosons, mesons, to supersymmetric strings. But no one argues that"molecules are better than atoms" or that "organs are preferable to tissues" because you can't have the higher form without the lower.
I see postmodernism as a summation of all that has come before, not a replacement for it. And even that is an incomplete statement. Pomo is aKIND of summation and is certainly not the pinnacle of thought. The pomo/mo conflict is like an argument between the Kool-Aid and the sugar as to which has the "right" flavor or makes the largest contribution. We can't have one without the other and they're both swimming in the water, so why see it as a dichotomy? I don't think the mo/pomo split IS a dichotomy, any more than I feel that there is an atom-molecule dichotomy.
Postmoderns who portray things dichotomously are really trustees in the prison. They may think they are different than everyone else, but unlike the guards, they don't have the keys and they are still stuck in theprison. Pomoxians who don't embrace the moderns in their midst are still prisoners of modern thinking, no matter how pomo they claim to be.
So who is up for an integrative form of Christianity that embraces all God's children regardless of where they are as fellow travelers on thejourney from whom we all have much to learn and possibly a little to contribute?
8.28.2004
Where Have All the Locusts Gone?
I picked up a book this week and absolutely devoured it. Consumed it like a locust swarm. The book is Locust by Jeffery A. Lockwood, a professor at University of Wyoming. The book investigates the history of the Rocky Mountain locust in shaping the west and proposes a theory for its extinction near the turn of the last century.
What I found most enjoyable about the book is the engaging writing style. Lockwood carries the same breezy freedom of many western writers. He has much of the folksy style that originated with Mark Twain and continues in his heirs Patrick F. McManus and Joel Vance. This would be entirely unremarkable if it weren't for the fact that Lockwood is an entomologist. He hunts bugs.
O.K. in all fairness, they aren't bugs, they're insects (arthropods for you biology fans). But in any case, Lockwood has shown himself to be a writer. An engaging writer who managed to write a book that told a gripping mystery that was full of history, comedy, drama, tragedy and loss. It goes beyond a natural history text and reads more like a detective story. If I didn't know any better, I would have said that this is a companion piece to a NOVA broadcast. And if it isn't it ought to be. This was a wonderful piece of reading that makes me want to check out his earlier book, Grasshopper Dreaming.
Check it out for yourself.
I picked up a book this week and absolutely devoured it. Consumed it like a locust swarm. The book is Locust by Jeffery A. Lockwood, a professor at University of Wyoming. The book investigates the history of the Rocky Mountain locust in shaping the west and proposes a theory for its extinction near the turn of the last century.
What I found most enjoyable about the book is the engaging writing style. Lockwood carries the same breezy freedom of many western writers. He has much of the folksy style that originated with Mark Twain and continues in his heirs Patrick F. McManus and Joel Vance. This would be entirely unremarkable if it weren't for the fact that Lockwood is an entomologist. He hunts bugs.
O.K. in all fairness, they aren't bugs, they're insects (arthropods for you biology fans). But in any case, Lockwood has shown himself to be a writer. An engaging writer who managed to write a book that told a gripping mystery that was full of history, comedy, drama, tragedy and loss. It goes beyond a natural history text and reads more like a detective story. If I didn't know any better, I would have said that this is a companion piece to a NOVA broadcast. And if it isn't it ought to be. This was a wonderful piece of reading that makes me want to check out his earlier book, Grasshopper Dreaming.
Check it out for yourself.
8.25.2004
Jonathan Edwards on Spiritual Pride
A must read for all of us: http://www.bibleteacher.org/jedw_19.htm
A must read for all of us: http://www.bibleteacher.org/jedw_19.htm
8.23.2004
Ranting Against the Ranters
It's been a while since I've heard much in the emerging conversation beyond bashing the moderns and saying, "we've got to do better." Apart from the home church movement and various other "out there" groups, most of what I see is "same thing only different."
Historically this country began with fairly staid institutions through the first Great Awakening to more vibrant institutions. The wesward movement of the frontier during the second Great Awakening saw the rise of all sorts of transformations. There was the rise of a multitude of denominations and groups. Just look at the explosion of sects during the 1800's - SDAs, Stone/Campbell Restorationmovement, Mormons, JWs, expansion of Methodism and Baptists, rise of the Pentecostal movement, just to name a few. All of them were revolutionary in their way, yet all of them were a reflection of American culture. The rise of Prohibition, anti-slavery and women's suffrage all reflect the American culture that had a deeply embedded religiosity.
Following the turn of the century, America went into a long transition to secularism in both religious and social life. Scientific principles were applied to theology and religion moved from meditative and contemplative in more liturgical circles and from enthusiasm in the newer denominations to more inquiry-based religion. Even the most revolutionary of denominations took hold of the "science" of hermeneutics and an approach to the Bible and religion that has shaped the conversation of the entire past century.
I know this is painting with a broad brush but hey, this is an e-mail post, not a treatise. Let's flow with the generalities here.
Today we are seeing the potential for transformation butI've seen little real evidence of it. Church has had some cosmetic changes, many of which we've seen in our lifetimes with the rise of the mega-churches, and will continue to do so. But I believe it will continue to reflect the culture, as it always has, until it either resonates with the experience of the people as it once did in our country and as we are seeing in some of the Third World countries of our day or else it will become a footnote to culture as we see in Europe.
For my part, I see much of the Emergent Church movement as re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The efforts to "save the church" are, IMO, misguided and ultimately doomed to failure. God did not send us into the world to save the church. He called us to transform the world. If we see the church as a consequence of our activity and not an institution to save or organization to perpetuate, I think we would then begin to think radically and realistically about our mission. Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost. Too manyof us are here to seek and to save that which is found. Whatwould happen if we would abandon our allegiance to institutions and instead sought to simply embrace the hurting, feed the hungry, comfort the grieving and shared the love of Jesus through genuine relationships? Churchwould then happen on its own. But as long as we seek to criticize the church, fix the church, transform the church,whatever.... we miss the Mission.
I think we have become a nation of spectators. We watch athletics on TV. We listen to sports talk radio and even call in to the programs. We talk about sports at the office. We join in the betting pools and have all sorts of fun.
But we don't actually play sports.
And church is no different. We watch church, we talk church,we argue church, we even bet our offerings to support our favorite church and try to convince other church fans to join our club and support our team.
But we don't actually DO church.
And until we do, the Emergent conversation will be just that- a conversation.
It's been a while since I've heard much in the emerging conversation beyond bashing the moderns and saying, "we've got to do better." Apart from the home church movement and various other "out there" groups, most of what I see is "same thing only different."
Historically this country began with fairly staid institutions through the first Great Awakening to more vibrant institutions. The wesward movement of the frontier during the second Great Awakening saw the rise of all sorts of transformations. There was the rise of a multitude of denominations and groups. Just look at the explosion of sects during the 1800's - SDAs, Stone/Campbell Restorationmovement, Mormons, JWs, expansion of Methodism and Baptists, rise of the Pentecostal movement, just to name a few. All of them were revolutionary in their way, yet all of them were a reflection of American culture. The rise of Prohibition, anti-slavery and women's suffrage all reflect the American culture that had a deeply embedded religiosity.
Following the turn of the century, America went into a long transition to secularism in both religious and social life. Scientific principles were applied to theology and religion moved from meditative and contemplative in more liturgical circles and from enthusiasm in the newer denominations to more inquiry-based religion. Even the most revolutionary of denominations took hold of the "science" of hermeneutics and an approach to the Bible and religion that has shaped the conversation of the entire past century.
I know this is painting with a broad brush but hey, this is an e-mail post, not a treatise. Let's flow with the generalities here.
Today we are seeing the potential for transformation butI've seen little real evidence of it. Church has had some cosmetic changes, many of which we've seen in our lifetimes with the rise of the mega-churches, and will continue to do so. But I believe it will continue to reflect the culture, as it always has, until it either resonates with the experience of the people as it once did in our country and as we are seeing in some of the Third World countries of our day or else it will become a footnote to culture as we see in Europe.
For my part, I see much of the Emergent Church movement as re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The efforts to "save the church" are, IMO, misguided and ultimately doomed to failure. God did not send us into the world to save the church. He called us to transform the world. If we see the church as a consequence of our activity and not an institution to save or organization to perpetuate, I think we would then begin to think radically and realistically about our mission. Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost. Too manyof us are here to seek and to save that which is found. Whatwould happen if we would abandon our allegiance to institutions and instead sought to simply embrace the hurting, feed the hungry, comfort the grieving and shared the love of Jesus through genuine relationships? Churchwould then happen on its own. But as long as we seek to criticize the church, fix the church, transform the church,whatever.... we miss the Mission.
I think we have become a nation of spectators. We watch athletics on TV. We listen to sports talk radio and even call in to the programs. We talk about sports at the office. We join in the betting pools and have all sorts of fun.
But we don't actually play sports.
And church is no different. We watch church, we talk church,we argue church, we even bet our offerings to support our favorite church and try to convince other church fans to join our club and support our team.
But we don't actually DO church.
And until we do, the Emergent conversation will be just that- a conversation.
8.11.2004
The Culture War
This pretty much reflects my own thoughts on the matter.
rick
A Radical Alternative to Political Activism
by John MacArthur
from: http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=447
While I'm disturbed by the anti-Christian, morally debauched culture we live in, and long to see our nation turn to the biblical standard, I'm also concerned about the hostile response to that culture by some believers, churches, and Christian ministries.
Appalled by the lack of biblical morality or sense of justice, believers have taken the spiritual battle to the streets. Christians are being urged by other Christians to fight for cultural change by demonstrating, protesting, boycotting, and blockading anything that conflicts with our traditional values.
I'm concerned about the prevailing mindset that makes political and social activism the primary business of Christianity and reduces faith in Christ to just another political force. Here are a few ways I believe this current trend has inflicted serious harm on the cause of Christ and crippled the effectiveness of believers:
First, by looking to human means to reform society and establish Christian values, we've denied God's sovereignty over human history and events. Imagine what the world must think of our God. Do we think Him so weak and incapable of caring for us that we prefer using protests and political pressure rather than the spiritual resources He offers?
Second, seeking to bring biblical values to our culture by changing itthrough fleshly means is a selfish pursuit. The truth is, God never intended for us to be at ease with our culture. What effect will our being comfortable in our culture have on the eternal destination of the men and women in our communities who don't know Christ? Rather than demanding our rights and feathering for ourselves a nest where we feel safe and accepted, we need to see the deep spiritual needs of the world, and concern ourselves with offering them hope through Jesus Christ. That's what being a living sacrifice is all about.
Third, by establishing Christian values through earthly methods, we risk creating a false sense of morality. However difficult this is to accept, we do people little good by forcing them to adopt our biblical standards of morality. Doing so only brings superficial change and hides the real issue—sin and their need for rebirth in Jesus Christ. Policeman or prostitute, doctor or drug dealer, when people of this world face God's judgment, their traditional Christian values won't matter at all—only how they responded to JesusChrist. That's why pursuing outward change at the expense of inward transformation is always a nearsighted, costly choice.
Finally, by making activism our priority, we fashion a reputation as rabble rousing malcontents, and foster hostility toward unbelievers that alienates us from them, and them from us. We need to let go of the notion that culture and government are the enemy. Yes, the world is sinful, but must we act surprised or shocked by their sinfulness? How else should sinners act? They are blinded by the powers of darkness and have no spiritual discernment. That's why we must stop looking at the world as our enemy, and begin seeing them as our mission field. Indeed, we are in a battle, but it is a spiritual battle, one in which we must use spiritual weapons.
This pretty much reflects my own thoughts on the matter.
rick
A Radical Alternative to Political Activism
by John MacArthur
from: http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=447
While I'm disturbed by the anti-Christian, morally debauched culture we live in, and long to see our nation turn to the biblical standard, I'm also concerned about the hostile response to that culture by some believers, churches, and Christian ministries.
Appalled by the lack of biblical morality or sense of justice, believers have taken the spiritual battle to the streets. Christians are being urged by other Christians to fight for cultural change by demonstrating, protesting, boycotting, and blockading anything that conflicts with our traditional values.
I'm concerned about the prevailing mindset that makes political and social activism the primary business of Christianity and reduces faith in Christ to just another political force. Here are a few ways I believe this current trend has inflicted serious harm on the cause of Christ and crippled the effectiveness of believers:
First, by looking to human means to reform society and establish Christian values, we've denied God's sovereignty over human history and events. Imagine what the world must think of our God. Do we think Him so weak and incapable of caring for us that we prefer using protests and political pressure rather than the spiritual resources He offers?
Second, seeking to bring biblical values to our culture by changing itthrough fleshly means is a selfish pursuit. The truth is, God never intended for us to be at ease with our culture. What effect will our being comfortable in our culture have on the eternal destination of the men and women in our communities who don't know Christ? Rather than demanding our rights and feathering for ourselves a nest where we feel safe and accepted, we need to see the deep spiritual needs of the world, and concern ourselves with offering them hope through Jesus Christ. That's what being a living sacrifice is all about.
Third, by establishing Christian values through earthly methods, we risk creating a false sense of morality. However difficult this is to accept, we do people little good by forcing them to adopt our biblical standards of morality. Doing so only brings superficial change and hides the real issue—sin and their need for rebirth in Jesus Christ. Policeman or prostitute, doctor or drug dealer, when people of this world face God's judgment, their traditional Christian values won't matter at all—only how they responded to JesusChrist. That's why pursuing outward change at the expense of inward transformation is always a nearsighted, costly choice.
Finally, by making activism our priority, we fashion a reputation as rabble rousing malcontents, and foster hostility toward unbelievers that alienates us from them, and them from us. We need to let go of the notion that culture and government are the enemy. Yes, the world is sinful, but must we act surprised or shocked by their sinfulness? How else should sinners act? They are blinded by the powers of darkness and have no spiritual discernment. That's why we must stop looking at the world as our enemy, and begin seeing them as our mission field. Indeed, we are in a battle, but it is a spiritual battle, one in which we must use spiritual weapons.
8.01.2004
The king Dances Naked before His King
from Fred Peatross' Abductive Columns
(see Sidbar Link to read more)
After seeing Jesse's seven other sons, the prophet asked, "Are there more I have not seen?" Did it ever occur to Samuel to present David? Was he just a "shepherd-person?" To his brothers he was less—a nonentity, an outsider.
But turn the page and discover the choice of David as the anointed. Election into God's purpose is never by popular vote.
Everything David knew about God he experienced, embraced, and took into himself. God wasn't a doctrine David talked about but a person who led and cared for him.
David lived and died in Philistine culture and Canaanite morality; the Iron Age of violence and sex. How do we handle the paradox of this quintessentially human life lived in the middle of absolute dehumanizing conditions of which David himself was a willing participant? I can't imagine a more uncongenial time or more unlikely conditions for living a convincingly articulated life to the glory of God. None of us become believers in a social or cultural or political vacuum.
Yet David believed. He lived and worshipped like he believed—passionately, frighteningly, and radically. Interestingly, the same passion that fueled David's devotion became the magnetic force that pulled Bathsheba into the orbit of his will.
David's story immerses us in a reality that embraces the entire range of humanness, stretching from the deep interior of our souls to the farthest reaches of our imaginations. It's a story I never tire of reading. It reminds me what the world is, and what it means to be human in it.
from Fred Peatross' Abductive Columns
(see Sidbar Link to read more)
After seeing Jesse's seven other sons, the prophet asked, "Are there more I have not seen?" Did it ever occur to Samuel to present David? Was he just a "shepherd-person?" To his brothers he was less—a nonentity, an outsider.
But turn the page and discover the choice of David as the anointed. Election into God's purpose is never by popular vote.
Everything David knew about God he experienced, embraced, and took into himself. God wasn't a doctrine David talked about but a person who led and cared for him.
David lived and died in Philistine culture and Canaanite morality; the Iron Age of violence and sex. How do we handle the paradox of this quintessentially human life lived in the middle of absolute dehumanizing conditions of which David himself was a willing participant? I can't imagine a more uncongenial time or more unlikely conditions for living a convincingly articulated life to the glory of God. None of us become believers in a social or cultural or political vacuum.
Yet David believed. He lived and worshipped like he believed—passionately, frighteningly, and radically. Interestingly, the same passion that fueled David's devotion became the magnetic force that pulled Bathsheba into the orbit of his will.
David's story immerses us in a reality that embraces the entire range of humanness, stretching from the deep interior of our souls to the farthest reaches of our imaginations. It's a story I never tire of reading. It reminds me what the world is, and what it means to be human in it.
