“Love the LORD your God . . . with all your strength,” is ashamedly the one part of Deut. 6:5 that gets brushed over in the Christian tradition. Ironically, given the Scriptures strong metaphorical language against the body (flesh, dust, etc.), you would expect an in-depth analysis within the tradition for a clarification on this term. In Jewish tradition, it is also labeled as “strength” but not exclusively. Some theologians have chosen to translate it as “wealth” or “possessions” instead of “strength”.[1] The Hebrew word there - b'kol me'odekhah – does have a connotation of extra or more. In this context, the verse may actually be referring to
“loving God with all your heart, all your soul, and all the more that you are. . . All the more commands the mending of relation, for it takes us beyond the confines of ego in a movement towards the neigbor. God confronts man with the demand to turn to his human neighbor, and in doing so, to turn back to God Himself. . .”[2]
There is definitely more to this phrase than just to refer to the body.
In light of this rich exegesis, I would argue that we are commanded here not to merely love God with our bodies, as is commonly taught. For I believe that is already addressed in the command to love God with all your soul. To love God with all your more, means, or strength means that anything that is beyond your soul in which you have a responsibility for, you should cultivate in love towards God. I have responsibilities towards my neighbor, towards my money, towards my possessions, and towards my actions. And in all of these, I operate within the framework of cultivating these things in my life in order that I may love God in purity and earnest.
Therefore, the message and commandment of this verse is not to merely love God with all of yourself – as to say, we are to love him with our heart, soul, mind, and strength, which is thrown in there to mean everything else that is you. God is commanding us to love Him with all that we are and all that we have responsibility for, to love God in all of our existence. Our love for God extends beyond ourselves and into the world around us. Thusly, John’s insistence that to love God, you must love your brother![3] To isolate the love of God within our own egos is to assume that God’s love is not universal and does not connect our lives to others.
[1] Rashi
[2] Philosopher As Witness, 158.
[3] John 4
Showing posts with label Faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Faith. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Commandments and Relation
Growing up in the west you hear about religious commandments. We have the Ten Commandments, the Great Commandments, and even Jesus saying, "A new commandment I give unto you..." on top of numerous commandments He quoted and loved. Jesus loved the commandments, as He should if He was the one giving them to man.
Yet Evangelicalism seems to have a love/hate relationship with Commandments. At one instant we claim that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship: "We don't need religion and its laws that make us work to become good; we need God and His Son." While this is true to an extent, we turn around to many "other" communities - like homosexuals and those who have abortions to name a couple - and blast them with commandments instead of God's Son:"Thou shalt not murder." It's a game many of us don't realize we are playing, and it is slowly becoming a deadly game for Evangelicals.
Why are we afraid of commandments as a way to approach God relationally? Why are we afraid of relationships when we approach others who are unrighteous?
The Hebrew word for commandment is mitzvah. The root word of mitzvah is tzavta, which means "connection." What this tells us is that God did not give commandments in order to be legalistic, demanding, and ritualistic. On the contrary, God gave commandments as a way to connect to Him. Commandments are the way we connect to God, not the way we appease or become right with God. We become righteous by connecting with God. The commandments were given in order to guide is in the way we ought to go - the way we were created to go. We were created to be in relation with God, but we fail to do so every time we deny the way He created us. Therefore, the commandments are the vessel by which we reconnect with God. This is why the commandments have not become obsolete for the Christian. Because the commandments were never meant to engender righteousness; they are merely there to display the way by which we become righteous - through our relation with God.
Any thoughts, concerns, or disagreement? This is just fresh thoughts that could be dead wrong, but are brought about by understanding what "commandment" really means.
Yet Evangelicalism seems to have a love/hate relationship with Commandments. At one instant we claim that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship: "We don't need religion and its laws that make us work to become good; we need God and His Son." While this is true to an extent, we turn around to many "other" communities - like homosexuals and those who have abortions to name a couple - and blast them with commandments instead of God's Son:"Thou shalt not murder." It's a game many of us don't realize we are playing, and it is slowly becoming a deadly game for Evangelicals.
Why are we afraid of commandments as a way to approach God relationally? Why are we afraid of relationships when we approach others who are unrighteous?
The Hebrew word for commandment is mitzvah. The root word of mitzvah is tzavta, which means "connection." What this tells us is that God did not give commandments in order to be legalistic, demanding, and ritualistic. On the contrary, God gave commandments as a way to connect to Him. Commandments are the way we connect to God, not the way we appease or become right with God. We become righteous by connecting with God. The commandments were given in order to guide is in the way we ought to go - the way we were created to go. We were created to be in relation with God, but we fail to do so every time we deny the way He created us. Therefore, the commandments are the vessel by which we reconnect with God. This is why the commandments have not become obsolete for the Christian. Because the commandments were never meant to engender righteousness; they are merely there to display the way by which we become righteous - through our relation with God.
Any thoughts, concerns, or disagreement? This is just fresh thoughts that could be dead wrong, but are brought about by understanding what "commandment" really means.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Kingdom or Culture?
For years we have heard Christian leaders talked about a Christian sub-culture. Evangelicals for the past few decades have really invented a new culture to live in. We have our own soccer teams, concerts, coffee shops, bookstores, leaders, and some would say even politicians. We have our own lingo like "pray up" or "plugged in" or "traveling mercies" or "J.C." to name a few. We have our own clothes, and when we cannot be original enough we copy the culture around us with novelty shirts, musical taste, and cultural topics. When the culture gets Apple crazy, we change "iPod" to "iPray". We copy commercials and tv shows to make our own announcements. We have our own culture that is really a sub-culture of the bigger one. We are reactionary, and we are culture makers because of it.
Jesus, throughout his ministry, talked of the Kingdom. It was the subject of numerous parables such as the pearl of great price. Matthew 13 is a great manifesto of metaphors for the Kingdom. Jesus' first words in Mark are "The time is fulfilled, the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel." We are told that the Kingdom of God lives in our hearts. The Kingdom has been established, and is alive.
This juxtaposition of these two, culture and the Kingdom, hit me yesterday. We are so caught up in creating a culture that we have forgotten that we are already in one. Christ has founded His Kingdom and that is the "culture" that we are in. What has happened is the Kingdom has lost its relevance to the world because people have stopped seeing the gospel and salvation as a call to be a part of a culture already established by Christ. We already exist within a culture that tells us how to act, live, and think about things. Whenever we give into culture creating we neglect and diminish the Kingdom that we are already a part of. I think the first church that grabs hold of this idea will be the smallest yet most influential church we have seen in a long time. Once we stop caring about our sub-culture and culture we live in, the more we will find the Kingdom of God to be more than sufficient to give us meaning.
So what are your thoughts? It is needed to address the culture we live in, but do we do so by diminished the kingdom and creating our own reactionary culture?
Jesus, throughout his ministry, talked of the Kingdom. It was the subject of numerous parables such as the pearl of great price. Matthew 13 is a great manifesto of metaphors for the Kingdom. Jesus' first words in Mark are "The time is fulfilled, the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel." We are told that the Kingdom of God lives in our hearts. The Kingdom has been established, and is alive.
This juxtaposition of these two, culture and the Kingdom, hit me yesterday. We are so caught up in creating a culture that we have forgotten that we are already in one. Christ has founded His Kingdom and that is the "culture" that we are in. What has happened is the Kingdom has lost its relevance to the world because people have stopped seeing the gospel and salvation as a call to be a part of a culture already established by Christ. We already exist within a culture that tells us how to act, live, and think about things. Whenever we give into culture creating we neglect and diminish the Kingdom that we are already a part of. I think the first church that grabs hold of this idea will be the smallest yet most influential church we have seen in a long time. Once we stop caring about our sub-culture and culture we live in, the more we will find the Kingdom of God to be more than sufficient to give us meaning.
So what are your thoughts? It is needed to address the culture we live in, but do we do so by diminished the kingdom and creating our own reactionary culture?
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Thoughts for Your Sabbath: Prayer
"Prayer may not save us, but prayer makes us worth saving."
"Prayer is our humble answer to the inconceivable surprise of living. It is all we can offer in return for the mystery by which we live."
"The focus of prayer is not the self. . . It is the momentary disregard of our concerns, the absence of self-cetnered thoughts, which constitute the art of prayer. . . Thus, in beseeching Him for bread, there is one instant, at least, in which our mind is directed neither to our hunger nor to food, but to His mercy. This instant is prayer."
- Abraham Heschel on Prayer
The Sabbath for a Christian is a time of ceasing for the body and rest for the soul. It is a time for us to focus on our holiness. With this in mind, I thought it would be prudent to focus on what the early church held as holiness. In the beginning of Paul's letter to the church in Philipi, he offers up a prayer:
"And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God." - Philippians 1:9-11
The next five saturdays will be a series on these three verses. There are three main statements made that each start with the word "that". We will look at each one a week starting next week. This week, I wanted to focus on the very first phrase that may have stronger implications than we realize.
"And this I pray..."
What is prayer to Paul? Later in Philippians he makes a very important statement. "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God." Prayer AND supplication. The word for supplication here means asking and even begging for something. Notice this act is coupled from prayer but not the same. Prayer, in its essence, is a time of communion. In this communion, we offer up praise, thanksgiving, and requests as well as frustrations, agonies, pains, joys, love, and our neighbors. I am convinced that prayer would be much more powerful if we focused less on ourselves and more on others. Therefore, prayer is not telling God what He already knows you need. Prayer is offering up to God, as Lord, your very soul.
What does prayer look like? Jesus, in Matthew six, gave very different instructions to prayer than we are used to:
1. We are to pray in solitude (Matt. 6:6). Jesus Himself went to the mountain sides, wilderness, and pretty much any place he could find at early hours to ensure He was alone. He teaches this for focus (the Father is unseen), but also metaphorically to help us remember that prayer is an intimate act between you and God when each other's logos and pathos is poured out.
2. Prayer should be to the point and not filled up with words (Matt. 6:7). Being to the point produces sincerity in our words and hearts. Also prayer is not to be filled with words because our words are not near as important as His word.
3. We are to have the same focus on prayer as the Model Prayer shows us. We acknowledge God's presence and ask for his kingdom to be manifested in our own lives daily; we may ask for much but trust His character on what is essential (i.e. sustenance); we concern ourselves with our neighbor and our sins against our neighbor and God; and finally we ask for God's continual presence and guidance throughout our day.
This quick look at Jesus' teaching helps us refocus today as we pray. We can take his very simple guidance and turn it into a revolutionary instant in our day. The result of prayer and supplication, Paul says, is the peace of God. And that is true rest for the soul. In closing I want to offer up one more quote from Heschel that may refresh our senses on what prayer really does.
"The true motivation for prayer is not, as it has been said, the sense of being at home in the universe, but rather the sense of not being home in the universe. . . That experience gains intensity in the amazing awareness that God himself is not at home in the universe. He is not at home in the universe where His will is defied and where His kingship is denied. God is in exile; the world is corrupt. The universe itself is not at home. To pray means to bring God back into the world, to establish His kingship for a second at least. To pray means to expand His presence."
"Prayer is our humble answer to the inconceivable surprise of living. It is all we can offer in return for the mystery by which we live."
"The focus of prayer is not the self. . . It is the momentary disregard of our concerns, the absence of self-cetnered thoughts, which constitute the art of prayer. . . Thus, in beseeching Him for bread, there is one instant, at least, in which our mind is directed neither to our hunger nor to food, but to His mercy. This instant is prayer."
- Abraham Heschel on Prayer
The Sabbath for a Christian is a time of ceasing for the body and rest for the soul. It is a time for us to focus on our holiness. With this in mind, I thought it would be prudent to focus on what the early church held as holiness. In the beginning of Paul's letter to the church in Philipi, he offers up a prayer:
"And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God." - Philippians 1:9-11
The next five saturdays will be a series on these three verses. There are three main statements made that each start with the word "that". We will look at each one a week starting next week. This week, I wanted to focus on the very first phrase that may have stronger implications than we realize.
"And this I pray..."
What is prayer to Paul? Later in Philippians he makes a very important statement. "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God." Prayer AND supplication. The word for supplication here means asking and even begging for something. Notice this act is coupled from prayer but not the same. Prayer, in its essence, is a time of communion. In this communion, we offer up praise, thanksgiving, and requests as well as frustrations, agonies, pains, joys, love, and our neighbors. I am convinced that prayer would be much more powerful if we focused less on ourselves and more on others. Therefore, prayer is not telling God what He already knows you need. Prayer is offering up to God, as Lord, your very soul.
What does prayer look like? Jesus, in Matthew six, gave very different instructions to prayer than we are used to:
1. We are to pray in solitude (Matt. 6:6). Jesus Himself went to the mountain sides, wilderness, and pretty much any place he could find at early hours to ensure He was alone. He teaches this for focus (the Father is unseen), but also metaphorically to help us remember that prayer is an intimate act between you and God when each other's logos and pathos is poured out.
2. Prayer should be to the point and not filled up with words (Matt. 6:7). Being to the point produces sincerity in our words and hearts. Also prayer is not to be filled with words because our words are not near as important as His word.
3. We are to have the same focus on prayer as the Model Prayer shows us. We acknowledge God's presence and ask for his kingdom to be manifested in our own lives daily; we may ask for much but trust His character on what is essential (i.e. sustenance); we concern ourselves with our neighbor and our sins against our neighbor and God; and finally we ask for God's continual presence and guidance throughout our day.
This quick look at Jesus' teaching helps us refocus today as we pray. We can take his very simple guidance and turn it into a revolutionary instant in our day. The result of prayer and supplication, Paul says, is the peace of God. And that is true rest for the soul. In closing I want to offer up one more quote from Heschel that may refresh our senses on what prayer really does.
"The true motivation for prayer is not, as it has been said, the sense of being at home in the universe, but rather the sense of not being home in the universe. . . That experience gains intensity in the amazing awareness that God himself is not at home in the universe. He is not at home in the universe where His will is defied and where His kingship is denied. God is in exile; the world is corrupt. The universe itself is not at home. To pray means to bring God back into the world, to establish His kingship for a second at least. To pray means to expand His presence."
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Thoughts for Your Sabbath: Living by Truth
"But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." - John 3:19
It is clear with just an simple reading of Jesus' teachings that He liked to use the image of light in the darkness as metaphor for the good deeds of those who believe in Him. The contrast of this imagery immediately puts strong weight upon the actions of believers. This verse can easily be coupled with Matthew 5:9 where Jesus makes a very similar statement: "In the same way, let your light shine before man that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven." This profound message does need to be taken lightly given the connection to our actions and the world's perception of God Himself.
"But whoever lives by truth..."
What Does this mean? It is interesting that truth, in this passage, is dichotomized by evil (verse 18). The typical dichotomy for evil is good, but not here. Jesus is striking the heart of the evil. In the Christian perspective, we must not be so shallow as to think that the counter point to evil deeds is good deeds. These are external manifestations of an internal quality found in our very souls. If man is evil and marred, only the truth found in the gospel can relieve our souls. This why we live by the truth. The truth is not merely ideas and evil not merely an action. The truth is the redeeming reality of a changing gospel that turns the marred soul of evil into a soul that is born again. The truth is the powerful force that sets our enslaved soul free, our continual test against the falsity of evil, and our steadfast guide to how we ought to live.
On this day that we remember our souls, let us be captivated to live by the truth (the gospel and commandments). The consequence of such a life is that it draws us near to God, and it draws others to God. Find time today to focus on the truth of the gospel and how it has made your life anew. This life, this fresh soul, is the source of all our good deeds. Loving God and neighbor might become a very easy thing to do once we allow the truth to become a motivation to live and not just mere facts.
Let us live by truth.
It is clear with just an simple reading of Jesus' teachings that He liked to use the image of light in the darkness as metaphor for the good deeds of those who believe in Him. The contrast of this imagery immediately puts strong weight upon the actions of believers. This verse can easily be coupled with Matthew 5:9 where Jesus makes a very similar statement: "In the same way, let your light shine before man that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven." This profound message does need to be taken lightly given the connection to our actions and the world's perception of God Himself.
"But whoever lives by truth..."
What Does this mean? It is interesting that truth, in this passage, is dichotomized by evil (verse 18). The typical dichotomy for evil is good, but not here. Jesus is striking the heart of the evil. In the Christian perspective, we must not be so shallow as to think that the counter point to evil deeds is good deeds. These are external manifestations of an internal quality found in our very souls. If man is evil and marred, only the truth found in the gospel can relieve our souls. This why we live by the truth. The truth is not merely ideas and evil not merely an action. The truth is the redeeming reality of a changing gospel that turns the marred soul of evil into a soul that is born again. The truth is the powerful force that sets our enslaved soul free, our continual test against the falsity of evil, and our steadfast guide to how we ought to live.
On this day that we remember our souls, let us be captivated to live by the truth (the gospel and commandments). The consequence of such a life is that it draws us near to God, and it draws others to God. Find time today to focus on the truth of the gospel and how it has made your life anew. This life, this fresh soul, is the source of all our good deeds. Loving God and neighbor might become a very easy thing to do once we allow the truth to become a motivation to live and not just mere facts.
Let us live by truth.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Thoughts for Your Sabbath: A Day for Holiness
"Six days a week we wrestle with the world, wringing profit from the earth; on the Sabbath we especially care for the seed of eternity planted in the soul. The world has our hands, but our soul belongs to Someone Else. Six days a week we seek to dominate the world; on the seventh day we try to dominate the self. . . Is there any institution that holds out a greater hope for man's prgoress than the Sabbath?" - Abraham Heschel, I Asked for Wonder.
The Sabbath is the most sacred time for the Jew, and it is the most enigmatic commandment for the Christian. It is a time set apart by God as an eternal covenant with Israel (Ex. 31:16) and Christians alike (Heb. 4:1-11) where we cease from work, in deed and thought, and find rest in turning our souls towards God alone. For the Jew, the Sabbath is a covenant based on time - their Sabbath is not a place but a day. For the Christian, the Sabbath is a covenant based on the Gospel - our Sabbath is not a time but an essential quality in our new life.
God commanded the Sabbath as a day for holiness. He set apart this day as holy in order that we may cease from our role as cultivator and subduer of the earth, and find rest in the pursuit of God and holiness. The rituals for the Sabbath are all based on de-cluttering your life to focus. It is a command to leave behind the vanity, vulgarity, and business found in the world for the solitary and holy pursuit of God. It is a time for the work of the body to cease and the soul to flourish.
Sabbath is not a daily devotional for the Christian. It is not prayer, reading scripture intentionally, and reflection alone - although it contains all of this. Sabbath, I believe, needs community as well. The Jews practice the Sabbath, rest and ceasing of subduing and cultivating the earth, by spending it in community. It is the ceasing of utility in our lives for the sake of the quality of the essence of ourselves and those around us. We most certainly can and should retreat in solitude during our Sabbath, but only to prepare for the community that equally needs to be embraced. If human beings by nature are relational, we must not neglect one relation (man) for another (God). It is a time to refresh or souls in both love for God and neighbor.
As you go about your day remember the significance of the Sabbath, a day specifically for the flourishment of our souls. Whether your Sabbath is the whole day, an hour, or 15 minutes, focus singularly on nourishing your soul at some point today. As Jesus said, the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath. He makes it clear that ultimately the Sabbath is not a command to be obeyed but a gift to cherish. Fathers gather your family and cherish the gift of the Sabbath by communing with one another in study, prayer, and relaxation. As you meet with your friends, spend time with them in fun and reflection of your souls before God. Keep God and holiness in the forefront of your mind whether or not you are working today. This is about being intentional for the sake of your soul. In the middle of our to-do lists, let us not forget about our souls.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This weekly installment is a call to claim the seventh day (or at least a morning or hour) towards holiness and God. For the Christian, while our Sabbath or rest is found in the Gospel and not a day (Heb. 4), I think it is prudent for us, in this modern age, to claim a day a week solely for the pursuit of holiness. These devotional, conversational, and thought-provoking installments are meant to jump start your day in the direction towards remembering your soul's condition.
The Sabbath is the most sacred time for the Jew, and it is the most enigmatic commandment for the Christian. It is a time set apart by God as an eternal covenant with Israel (Ex. 31:16) and Christians alike (Heb. 4:1-11) where we cease from work, in deed and thought, and find rest in turning our souls towards God alone. For the Jew, the Sabbath is a covenant based on time - their Sabbath is not a place but a day. For the Christian, the Sabbath is a covenant based on the Gospel - our Sabbath is not a time but an essential quality in our new life.
God commanded the Sabbath as a day for holiness. He set apart this day as holy in order that we may cease from our role as cultivator and subduer of the earth, and find rest in the pursuit of God and holiness. The rituals for the Sabbath are all based on de-cluttering your life to focus. It is a command to leave behind the vanity, vulgarity, and business found in the world for the solitary and holy pursuit of God. It is a time for the work of the body to cease and the soul to flourish.
Sabbath is not a daily devotional for the Christian. It is not prayer, reading scripture intentionally, and reflection alone - although it contains all of this. Sabbath, I believe, needs community as well. The Jews practice the Sabbath, rest and ceasing of subduing and cultivating the earth, by spending it in community. It is the ceasing of utility in our lives for the sake of the quality of the essence of ourselves and those around us. We most certainly can and should retreat in solitude during our Sabbath, but only to prepare for the community that equally needs to be embraced. If human beings by nature are relational, we must not neglect one relation (man) for another (God). It is a time to refresh or souls in both love for God and neighbor.
As you go about your day remember the significance of the Sabbath, a day specifically for the flourishment of our souls. Whether your Sabbath is the whole day, an hour, or 15 minutes, focus singularly on nourishing your soul at some point today. As Jesus said, the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath. He makes it clear that ultimately the Sabbath is not a command to be obeyed but a gift to cherish. Fathers gather your family and cherish the gift of the Sabbath by communing with one another in study, prayer, and relaxation. As you meet with your friends, spend time with them in fun and reflection of your souls before God. Keep God and holiness in the forefront of your mind whether or not you are working today. This is about being intentional for the sake of your soul. In the middle of our to-do lists, let us not forget about our souls.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This weekly installment is a call to claim the seventh day (or at least a morning or hour) towards holiness and God. For the Christian, while our Sabbath or rest is found in the Gospel and not a day (Heb. 4), I think it is prudent for us, in this modern age, to claim a day a week solely for the pursuit of holiness. These devotional, conversational, and thought-provoking installments are meant to jump start your day in the direction towards remembering your soul's condition.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Being Christian in Society: Meeting on the Right Level
I was driving home yesterday from helping my brother move. On the way home, I turned on the radio to the local Christian station. As I listened in, I realized I was listening into a rare conversation - I felt like I walk into a funeral laughing. The program, which I failed to remember the name of and failed to find on the internet, was talking about homosexuality and how to deal with it. A guest "specialist" was on the air talking to a brave young women defending the right of a homosexual to live out their desires. What I found was a college girl who was more emotionally invested than intellectually, and a specialist who was more intellectually invested than emotionally. They weren't clicking. The young girl was saying how love should be respected and the specialist was saying how love is not the only thing at play here (which the specialist is right), and homosexuals are the main cause of HIV and so on (sounded like the specialist was saying over and over, "They are disease carriers!" The specialist did not say such a thing, but it came off this way).
This is the problem I find myself in often. I will talk to others about certain issues and become so intellectually invested that the emotional aspect of the issue goes out the window. I would say this is the problem for many Christian "specialists". There are also Christian generalists who usually turn out to be more emotionally invested in these issues.
It is the same for secularists too. The girl who bravely called into the radio station was emotionally invested and intellectually lacking. She was not dumb by any means, but she let her emotions dictate her thoughts. She was so focused on the idea of love prevailing and not being hindered that she failed to see, among other things, that good intentions do not always lead to good actions.
In John 8, Jesus was confronted by an issue. The Pharisees had brought a women to Him who had committed adultery. The law in Leviticus clearly states that this act deserves a stoning to death. As we read we find Jesus deals with the Pharisees upon which the grounds they raised the issue: intellectual and judicial grounds. "He who has no sin may throw the first stone," is all Jesus said to them. Jesus set a greater trap than they set for Him since those who judge others shall be judged. To the women, Jesus came to her at the level she was concerned with: the emotional. She knew her sin, and she knew her condemnation. What Jesus did was lift the condemnation from her emotionally and literally. "Women, where are they? Does no one condemn you?. . . Than neither do I condemn you. Go and leave your life of sin." Not only do we see the grace that was the fulfillment of the law, but we also see Jesus meeting and coming down to her level of emotion. "Where are they? Has no one condemned you?" Is the essence of Jesus coming down to meet us at our needs emotionally.
This the encouragement of having such an example in Jesus! When we find ourselves as believers in these tough issues, we must always remember to meet the other at the level they are at either intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, or physically. When someone is coming at you with emotional appeal we must meet that appeal and not move to a different level such as the intellectual. Let us learn from Jesus on how to live within our world in a Spirit-filled way!
This is the problem I find myself in often. I will talk to others about certain issues and become so intellectually invested that the emotional aspect of the issue goes out the window. I would say this is the problem for many Christian "specialists". There are also Christian generalists who usually turn out to be more emotionally invested in these issues.
It is the same for secularists too. The girl who bravely called into the radio station was emotionally invested and intellectually lacking. She was not dumb by any means, but she let her emotions dictate her thoughts. She was so focused on the idea of love prevailing and not being hindered that she failed to see, among other things, that good intentions do not always lead to good actions.
In John 8, Jesus was confronted by an issue. The Pharisees had brought a women to Him who had committed adultery. The law in Leviticus clearly states that this act deserves a stoning to death. As we read we find Jesus deals with the Pharisees upon which the grounds they raised the issue: intellectual and judicial grounds. "He who has no sin may throw the first stone," is all Jesus said to them. Jesus set a greater trap than they set for Him since those who judge others shall be judged. To the women, Jesus came to her at the level she was concerned with: the emotional. She knew her sin, and she knew her condemnation. What Jesus did was lift the condemnation from her emotionally and literally. "Women, where are they? Does no one condemn you?. . . Than neither do I condemn you. Go and leave your life of sin." Not only do we see the grace that was the fulfillment of the law, but we also see Jesus meeting and coming down to her level of emotion. "Where are they? Has no one condemned you?" Is the essence of Jesus coming down to meet us at our needs emotionally.This the encouragement of having such an example in Jesus! When we find ourselves as believers in these tough issues, we must always remember to meet the other at the level they are at either intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, or physically. When someone is coming at you with emotional appeal we must meet that appeal and not move to a different level such as the intellectual. Let us learn from Jesus on how to live within our world in a Spirit-filled way!
Monday, April 06, 2009
Being Christian in Society
I have heard many different ideas of what a Christian should look like in his or her society. Passages expounding on salt and light, the great commission, God healing our land, and being ambassadors of Christ are just a few of the many different ideas given to us by Scripture and clergy. Each passage has its place in creating a complete picture of the Christian in their society, but unfortunately we rarely understand the complete picture.
We see this lack of a complete picture from Christianity's history. Catholics have traditionally focused on social justice while justice with God is found blurred. Protestants have focused so much on justice before God that they have neglected social justice. Obviously these are broad generalizations, but I think it is safe to say that, traditionally, both sides lean their own ways. Just look at each side in their prime - St. Francis and John Wesley.
Today evangelicalism is still plagued with the stigma that they care about numbers of souls in heaven and not the poor soul downtown who needs bread to eat. This is simply not true in its totality, but the stigma exists for a reason. I am convinced that if Christians understood their role in their society, they would find an understanding society towards Christianity.
What is the Christian's role in society? What does the Christian look like in his or her society? Let's Discuss!
We see this lack of a complete picture from Christianity's history. Catholics have traditionally focused on social justice while justice with God is found blurred. Protestants have focused so much on justice before God that they have neglected social justice. Obviously these are broad generalizations, but I think it is safe to say that, traditionally, both sides lean their own ways. Just look at each side in their prime - St. Francis and John Wesley.
Today evangelicalism is still plagued with the stigma that they care about numbers of souls in heaven and not the poor soul downtown who needs bread to eat. This is simply not true in its totality, but the stigma exists for a reason. I am convinced that if Christians understood their role in their society, they would find an understanding society towards Christianity.
What is the Christian's role in society? What does the Christian look like in his or her society? Let's Discuss!
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Won't You Be My Neighbor? - Soulation Fledge
I was asked by my good friends, Dale and Jonalyn, from Soulation to write a Fledge. A Fledge is sort of like a conversational article written to followers of Soulation. You can follow the link above to join the list and to browse their many resources. I just want to publicly thank Dale and Jonalyn for this opportunity, what they mean to Savannah and I, and their continual friendship.
Here is the article:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Savannah and I recently watched one of our favorite movies, Cast Away. Two characters unfold the story: Chuck Noland, played by Tom Hanks, and Wilson, played by a volleyball who becomes the only friend of Noland on the deserted island. As an inanimate object, Wilson pushes us to see our deep human need –relationships. When the ball floats away during their escape at sea, I feel sad—not for Wilson, but for Noland. Wilson was the only humanity he had left, his only companion.
This relational innateness of us, made in the image of the Trinity and stated explicitly in the Creation story and the law, is why Jesus said the two greatest commandments were to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Moreover, Jesus said that these two commandments are the hooks of which the entire law hangs. The law was given to God’s people to display to humanity worldwide what it looks like to be appropriately human. The canvas for this picture is love.
Let’s focus on this neighborly love. I had a conversation with a man who had a problem with “loving your neighbor as yourself.” To love others, he thought, you must be able to love yourself. His problem was that even the seemingly most selfless part of Christianity is egocentric - "What a gross commandment!" he said. I shared that he had a valid point if that was the meaning of the verse. But it is quite possible the commandment speaks much more about who we are than how we should balance out the scales in our love for ourselves and others.
Let us look closer at what Jesus is really saying here. The Hebrew word for "as yourself" – kamokha - is better translated as "who you are" This is the same word we find when the Prophets shout out in praise, "Who is like you God?" The word focuses on your nature and not your ego - not what we talk about when we say "I", but the very stuff that make's up that I.*
With this in mind, the commandment is better understood to say, "Love your neighbor for that is who you are." The commandment is not threatening you by saying, "I know how much you love yourself and you better love others the same amount." Nor is the commandment saying we are one in the universe, as some spiritualists would have us believe, connected by the awakened consciousness. In contrast, God is commanding us to live up to our humanness. He is not asking us to add on to our humanity a love for others, but to acknowledge our shared humanity by loving others. This is Jesus’ story of the Good Samaritan. God is calling us to be human because to be human is to be relational and loving.
Since I was young, I have had a psychological connection with this commandment and Mr. Rogers. However simple Mr. Rogers seems to us now, he demonstrated the practical side of Jesus' meaning of this commandment. Everyday I stared at my TV while Mr. Rogers taught that everyone is his neighbor. All who are listening get invited into the loving question: "Won't you be my neighbor?"
That loving question is the call of the Christian. Bono said, "We discover who we are in service to one another, not the self."** As we seek to love others, we will find all the more what it means to be appropriately human.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*This interpretation is built upon the view of Dr. David Patterson, Chair of Judaic Studies at the University of Memphis, in his book, Wrestling with the Angel, p12.
**Bono. “A Time for Miracles”. Time Magazine. March 2007.
Here is the article:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Savannah and I recently watched one of our favorite movies, Cast Away. Two characters unfold the story: Chuck Noland, played by Tom Hanks, and Wilson, played by a volleyball who becomes the only friend of Noland on the deserted island. As an inanimate object, Wilson pushes us to see our deep human need –relationships. When the ball floats away during their escape at sea, I feel sad—not for Wilson, but for Noland. Wilson was the only humanity he had left, his only companion.
This relational innateness of us, made in the image of the Trinity and stated explicitly in the Creation story and the law, is why Jesus said the two greatest commandments were to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Moreover, Jesus said that these two commandments are the hooks of which the entire law hangs. The law was given to God’s people to display to humanity worldwide what it looks like to be appropriately human. The canvas for this picture is love.
Let’s focus on this neighborly love. I had a conversation with a man who had a problem with “loving your neighbor as yourself.” To love others, he thought, you must be able to love yourself. His problem was that even the seemingly most selfless part of Christianity is egocentric - "What a gross commandment!" he said. I shared that he had a valid point if that was the meaning of the verse. But it is quite possible the commandment speaks much more about who we are than how we should balance out the scales in our love for ourselves and others.
Let us look closer at what Jesus is really saying here. The Hebrew word for "as yourself" – kamokha - is better translated as "who you are" This is the same word we find when the Prophets shout out in praise, "Who is like you God?" The word focuses on your nature and not your ego - not what we talk about when we say "I", but the very stuff that make's up that I.*
With this in mind, the commandment is better understood to say, "Love your neighbor for that is who you are." The commandment is not threatening you by saying, "I know how much you love yourself and you better love others the same amount." Nor is the commandment saying we are one in the universe, as some spiritualists would have us believe, connected by the awakened consciousness. In contrast, God is commanding us to live up to our humanness. He is not asking us to add on to our humanity a love for others, but to acknowledge our shared humanity by loving others. This is Jesus’ story of the Good Samaritan. God is calling us to be human because to be human is to be relational and loving.
Since I was young, I have had a psychological connection with this commandment and Mr. Rogers. However simple Mr. Rogers seems to us now, he demonstrated the practical side of Jesus' meaning of this commandment. Everyday I stared at my TV while Mr. Rogers taught that everyone is his neighbor. All who are listening get invited into the loving question: "Won't you be my neighbor?"
That loving question is the call of the Christian. Bono said, "We discover who we are in service to one another, not the self."** As we seek to love others, we will find all the more what it means to be appropriately human.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*This interpretation is built upon the view of Dr. David Patterson, Chair of Judaic Studies at the University of Memphis, in his book, Wrestling with the Angel, p12.
**Bono. “A Time for Miracles”. Time Magazine. March 2007.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Is God's Redemption Incompetent?
Paul goes into this deeply in Romans where he says with great puzzlement, "I do what I do not want to do." This is a very existential statement; he is frustrated and he understand this question as well as anyone. He concludes that although his life is grounded in the Spirit or redemption, the nature of the flesh or sin is still there. The answer then is twofold. First of all, we must realize that the work of redemption is completely not dependent on us. We do not obtain it by works, and we do not keep it by works. The work of redemption is having a fresh stance with God as righteous - a stance that will never leave us as we are washed in the righteousness of Christ (again nothing we obtain on our own). The work of redemption also creates us anew, free from the bonds of sin. Does this mean none will sin after redemption? No. It does mean that we are no longer bound by sin and its effect on us. Moreover, it really does mean that desires have changed from wanting to fulfill sinful urges to wanting to fulfill holy urges. If this is not present in a person, it is quite possible they have never truly understood and taken on the faith they think. This is actually the clearest test for evaluating someone's sincere faith - the New Testament church used it.
Secondly, we must remember that while redemption is complete in its covering of our sins and victory over sin, it does not wipe away our memory. A person who was a drug addict and then became a christian does not mean they will not struggle in that area anymore. He addict still remembers the rush, the feeling, and the comfort that can come from such an addiction. While he may have fresh desires to never touch the stuff again, there will be times that those memories and even body urges will press hard upon him. This is why no christian should claim to be perfect; as Chesterton said, "When the world goes wrong, it proves rather that the Church is right. The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do." Even when we look at the Mother Theresa's or Billy Graham's we find struggle in their life if they are willing to admit it. The beauty of Christianity is what I have said in the past: Ideals are fleeting, but the journey towards them is quite concrete.
So the redemption is complete as we are covered in Christ's righteousness, and that we are changed in desire and perspective. However, sin still remains as long as we are human, have a memory, and have experienced sin. But isn't the whole point of Christianity the idea that man is a wreck without God? Without God's continual grace and our continual desire to follow after God, even the christian is a wreck.
Secondly, we must remember that while redemption is complete in its covering of our sins and victory over sin, it does not wipe away our memory. A person who was a drug addict and then became a christian does not mean they will not struggle in that area anymore. He addict still remembers the rush, the feeling, and the comfort that can come from such an addiction. While he may have fresh desires to never touch the stuff again, there will be times that those memories and even body urges will press hard upon him. This is why no christian should claim to be perfect; as Chesterton said, "When the world goes wrong, it proves rather that the Church is right. The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do." Even when we look at the Mother Theresa's or Billy Graham's we find struggle in their life if they are willing to admit it. The beauty of Christianity is what I have said in the past: Ideals are fleeting, but the journey towards them is quite concrete.
So the redemption is complete as we are covered in Christ's righteousness, and that we are changed in desire and perspective. However, sin still remains as long as we are human, have a memory, and have experienced sin. But isn't the whole point of Christianity the idea that man is a wreck without God? Without God's continual grace and our continual desire to follow after God, even the christian is a wreck.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Q&A: Why Does God's Redemption Seem Incompetent?
I was sitting with a friend the other day and we were talking about different things we have learned in the past couple of weeks. As the conversation developed, I just simply asked him, "Do you ever feel like God didn't do that great a job redeeming us?" He smiled and said, "Yes." Right then I felt the same agony and fear that haunts many Christians when faced with the existential dilemma. I truly believe that this is the greatest argument against Christianity in our generation. Let Bill Maher bring up talking serpents all he wants. Until Christians become genuine and honest in their faith, there will always be this existential struggle for the unbeliever.
This question I asked my friend has been posed in many ways. I like the following three to help give it a clearer context:
"I like [Christianity's] Christ, but I do not like its Christians." - Ghandi
"If you Christians want me to believe in your redeemer you will have to look more redeemed." - Nietzsche
"There are five Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Christian, and some people will never read the first four." - Gipsy Smith
Each of these men saw the simplicity of the Christian faith that most Christians miss. If you have been given new life, then your life should be different. When we do not see this, we automatically doubt. Christians and unbelievers should both automatically doubt. Christians do not have to be reminded of James' "Faith without works is dead," nor the peculiar words the Gospels use when the paralytic's friends tore open the roof to get to Jesus, "When Jesus SAW their faith." This simplicity - "if A, then B" - should scare us.
So what can be said in defense for Christ's death and resurrection? Is it incompetent? I'll post my answer soon, but first let's discuss. Any and all comments are welcome.
This question I asked my friend has been posed in many ways. I like the following three to help give it a clearer context:
"I like [Christianity's] Christ, but I do not like its Christians." - Ghandi
"If you Christians want me to believe in your redeemer you will have to look more redeemed." - Nietzsche
"There are five Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Christian, and some people will never read the first four." - Gipsy Smith
Each of these men saw the simplicity of the Christian faith that most Christians miss. If you have been given new life, then your life should be different. When we do not see this, we automatically doubt. Christians and unbelievers should both automatically doubt. Christians do not have to be reminded of James' "Faith without works is dead," nor the peculiar words the Gospels use when the paralytic's friends tore open the roof to get to Jesus, "When Jesus SAW their faith." This simplicity - "if A, then B" - should scare us.
So what can be said in defense for Christ's death and resurrection? Is it incompetent? I'll post my answer soon, but first let's discuss. Any and all comments are welcome.
Monday, December 22, 2008
A Shared (or Borrowed) Vision
I have been reading "An Arrow Pointed to Heaven", which is a biography of Rich Mullins. Whenever I have felt lost in my vision of where I want to be and what I would like to do I go to people like Rich Mullins who have had a big impact on my life. I read in his biography an excerpt of a letter he sent to his "boss" at the record company he was writing songs for. He was declaring his desire to become a performing artist and not just a writer. These were his words that echoed dearly in my soul as I read them:
"I want to be involved as much as possible in Church work... I want to work in the settings that are specifically designed to challenge people, to encourage people to seek their life in Christ. I would like not only to sing but to teach... to 'hang out' with people, to be accessible, to model faith [to] them, to be with people not as a performer, but as a practitioner of the faith."
I read that wide eyed as his words put life to my desires. This is my goal in life, however it looks in practice is secondary as long as it is practiced. Every day and breath of mine will hopefully be set upon this vision. I am just glad that I have finally found words that formulate accurately what I have been longing for a long time.
"I want to be involved as much as possible in Church work... I want to work in the settings that are specifically designed to challenge people, to encourage people to seek their life in Christ. I would like not only to sing but to teach... to 'hang out' with people, to be accessible, to model faith [to] them, to be with people not as a performer, but as a practitioner of the faith."
I read that wide eyed as his words put life to my desires. This is my goal in life, however it looks in practice is secondary as long as it is practiced. Every day and breath of mine will hopefully be set upon this vision. I am just glad that I have finally found words that formulate accurately what I have been longing for a long time.
Friday, May 09, 2008
The Underlying Story of Creation
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." - Genesis 1:1
Christians make a big statement when they say this, especially in todays world. However, the more I study and learn, the more I am convinced this statement is the beginning of a very true story. I want to take this verse in sections and then show the underlying story that is not focused on in the continuing verses. The story will unfold as I go, so let's begin.
"in the beginning..." is a phrase that is needs more explanation than usually given. The idea here is not necessarily the beginning of time. I do not see a problem with this, but it would be better to translate this phrase to mean the fundamental principle or most important thing. The Vulgate and Jewish translation both connotate this idea. This means that it is not just focused on the beginning of a process but is actually trying to highlight this moment as being fundamental to all existence. What this tells us is that what is about to be said next is the fundamental or basis for everything else. Therefore, the phrase "God created" is in the context of the essence of all there is. All there is stems from God Himself. This is not to mean God is the heavens and the earth, but that He created them according to His own nature. God CREATED, which implies things distinct from Himself but something that is not completely other in nature.
The word "create" in Hebrew is "bara". This word has the same root as the word "brit", which means covenant. This means that for God to create meant that He was entering into a relation. From the very beginning relation is there. This is big - the beginning was a very personal one. It had to be personal if the world as we know it makes any sense.
In the big scheme of things there are only a few answers to the question of being - How did things get here? Francis Schaeffer lines out four possibilities:
1. Once there was absolutely nothing and now there is something
2. Everything began with an impersonal something
3. Everything began with a personal something
4. There is and always has been a dualism
The first option, as Schaeffer points out and I agree, cannot be held seriously. This view has lost popularity to my undertsanding for obvious reasons. If you say there was really nothing and then something, you must truly mean there was nothing - no matter, no energy, or anything else. This is inconceivable. The last one is equally unsatisfactory to most people because we always look for the unity beyond the duality. Even the idea of Yin and Yang we try to fit into a unity of harmony; we try to see the one relationship as the answer, not the two separate.
The second option, is widely held, but as Schaeffer points out, it is not satisfactory to explain the world:
"An impersonal beginning, however, raises two overwhelming problems. . . First, there is no real explanation for the fact that the external world not only exists, but has a specific form. . . What is there has form. If we assert the existence of the impersonal as the beginning of the universe, we simply have no explanation for this kind of situation."
So this first point is saying that an impersonal beginning of the universe does not explain form. If a mysterious power or harmony of powers or even matter and energy exist, it does not give rise to the complexity and form that science finds. This is the basic argument of Intelligent Design; and intelligence implies personality, even if it is an indifferent one. Schaeffer's second point hits a much more alarming deficiency of an impersonal beginning:
"Second, and more importantly, if we begin with an impersonal universe, there is no explanation of personality. . . Man has a mannishness. You find it wherever you find man- not only in the men who live today, but in the artifacts of history. The assumption of an impersonal beginning can never adequately explain the personal beings around us, and when men try to explain man on the basis of an original impersoanl, man soon disappears. IN SHORT, an impersonal beginning explains neither the form of the universe nor the personality of man. Hence it gives no basis for understanding human relationships, building just societies or engaging in any kind of cultural effort."
Here, Schaeffer shows that an impersonal beginning to all there is does not explain personality, relationships, morals, or cultural effort. A power of some sort cannot bring about personality because it is unable to create; only empower. A mind can only create personality because it is personality itself. If we have a personal universe, then we must have a personal beginning.
This is what we get in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Each one purports a personal beginning, but Christianity is the only one that purposts a relational beginning. In theory, there is a difference in personal and relational. You do not need another to be a person, you need an other to be relational. This is something only Christianity can offer through the Trinity.
However, great a mystery the Trinity is, it really does give answers that no other worldview can really give satisfactorily. The biggest thing that the Trinity offers is that love and communication are intrinsic to what has always been. There is an I-You relationship in the Trinity that needs both love and communication to exist. Therefore, as seen earlier, when God created as the most fundamental event, he created in like fashion (and remember to create implies a relationship being made). Unlike Islam where Allah has to create others in order to love, communicate, and relate; the Triune God needs no creation to do these things. However, when he does create, it is intrinsic for Him to do so and create relational things. Schaeffer puts it in the following way:
"The historic Christian position concerning Genesis 1:1 is the only one which can be substantiated, the only one which is fair and adequate to the whole thrust of Scripture. "In the beginning" is a technical term stating the fact that at this particular point of sequence there is a creation ex nihilo - a creation out of nothing. All that is, except God Himself who had already been, now comes into existence. Before this there was a personal existence - love and communication. Prior to the material universe, prior to the creation of all there else, there is love and communication. This means that love and communication are intrinsic. And hence, when modern man screams for love and communication, Christians have an answer: There is value to love and communication because it is rooted into what intrisnically always has been."
This last statement is key. Love and communication in our lives has no value outside of them being intrinsic in our creator. This worlds complexity, and the existence of relational beings gives more reason to believe in a personal Creator than an impersonal one. Moreover, it makes sense for the Trinity. Even the question of unity in diversity is answered in the Trinity. Relation is the foundation of all the world, and we cannot get that unless the Triune God is the Creator.
There is a lot of ground covered in this and this is more complex than this. If there are holes then we can discuss them. This topic takes books to cover but I think this at least gives an overview of this. Maybe more will come...
Christians make a big statement when they say this, especially in todays world. However, the more I study and learn, the more I am convinced this statement is the beginning of a very true story. I want to take this verse in sections and then show the underlying story that is not focused on in the continuing verses. The story will unfold as I go, so let's begin.
"in the beginning..." is a phrase that is needs more explanation than usually given. The idea here is not necessarily the beginning of time. I do not see a problem with this, but it would be better to translate this phrase to mean the fundamental principle or most important thing. The Vulgate and Jewish translation both connotate this idea. This means that it is not just focused on the beginning of a process but is actually trying to highlight this moment as being fundamental to all existence. What this tells us is that what is about to be said next is the fundamental or basis for everything else. Therefore, the phrase "God created" is in the context of the essence of all there is. All there is stems from God Himself. This is not to mean God is the heavens and the earth, but that He created them according to His own nature. God CREATED, which implies things distinct from Himself but something that is not completely other in nature.
The word "create" in Hebrew is "bara". This word has the same root as the word "brit", which means covenant. This means that for God to create meant that He was entering into a relation. From the very beginning relation is there. This is big - the beginning was a very personal one. It had to be personal if the world as we know it makes any sense.
In the big scheme of things there are only a few answers to the question of being - How did things get here? Francis Schaeffer lines out four possibilities:
1. Once there was absolutely nothing and now there is something
2. Everything began with an impersonal something
3. Everything began with a personal something
4. There is and always has been a dualism
The first option, as Schaeffer points out and I agree, cannot be held seriously. This view has lost popularity to my undertsanding for obvious reasons. If you say there was really nothing and then something, you must truly mean there was nothing - no matter, no energy, or anything else. This is inconceivable. The last one is equally unsatisfactory to most people because we always look for the unity beyond the duality. Even the idea of Yin and Yang we try to fit into a unity of harmony; we try to see the one relationship as the answer, not the two separate.
The second option, is widely held, but as Schaeffer points out, it is not satisfactory to explain the world:
"An impersonal beginning, however, raises two overwhelming problems. . . First, there is no real explanation for the fact that the external world not only exists, but has a specific form. . . What is there has form. If we assert the existence of the impersonal as the beginning of the universe, we simply have no explanation for this kind of situation."
So this first point is saying that an impersonal beginning of the universe does not explain form. If a mysterious power or harmony of powers or even matter and energy exist, it does not give rise to the complexity and form that science finds. This is the basic argument of Intelligent Design; and intelligence implies personality, even if it is an indifferent one. Schaeffer's second point hits a much more alarming deficiency of an impersonal beginning:
"Second, and more importantly, if we begin with an impersonal universe, there is no explanation of personality. . . Man has a mannishness. You find it wherever you find man- not only in the men who live today, but in the artifacts of history. The assumption of an impersonal beginning can never adequately explain the personal beings around us, and when men try to explain man on the basis of an original impersoanl, man soon disappears. IN SHORT, an impersonal beginning explains neither the form of the universe nor the personality of man. Hence it gives no basis for understanding human relationships, building just societies or engaging in any kind of cultural effort."
Here, Schaeffer shows that an impersonal beginning to all there is does not explain personality, relationships, morals, or cultural effort. A power of some sort cannot bring about personality because it is unable to create; only empower. A mind can only create personality because it is personality itself. If we have a personal universe, then we must have a personal beginning.
This is what we get in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Each one purports a personal beginning, but Christianity is the only one that purposts a relational beginning. In theory, there is a difference in personal and relational. You do not need another to be a person, you need an other to be relational. This is something only Christianity can offer through the Trinity.
However, great a mystery the Trinity is, it really does give answers that no other worldview can really give satisfactorily. The biggest thing that the Trinity offers is that love and communication are intrinsic to what has always been. There is an I-You relationship in the Trinity that needs both love and communication to exist. Therefore, as seen earlier, when God created as the most fundamental event, he created in like fashion (and remember to create implies a relationship being made). Unlike Islam where Allah has to create others in order to love, communicate, and relate; the Triune God needs no creation to do these things. However, when he does create, it is intrinsic for Him to do so and create relational things. Schaeffer puts it in the following way:
"The historic Christian position concerning Genesis 1:1 is the only one which can be substantiated, the only one which is fair and adequate to the whole thrust of Scripture. "In the beginning" is a technical term stating the fact that at this particular point of sequence there is a creation ex nihilo - a creation out of nothing. All that is, except God Himself who had already been, now comes into existence. Before this there was a personal existence - love and communication. Prior to the material universe, prior to the creation of all there else, there is love and communication. This means that love and communication are intrinsic. And hence, when modern man screams for love and communication, Christians have an answer: There is value to love and communication because it is rooted into what intrisnically always has been."
This last statement is key. Love and communication in our lives has no value outside of them being intrinsic in our creator. This worlds complexity, and the existence of relational beings gives more reason to believe in a personal Creator than an impersonal one. Moreover, it makes sense for the Trinity. Even the question of unity in diversity is answered in the Trinity. Relation is the foundation of all the world, and we cannot get that unless the Triune God is the Creator.
There is a lot of ground covered in this and this is more complex than this. If there are holes then we can discuss them. This topic takes books to cover but I think this at least gives an overview of this. Maybe more will come...
Monday, March 31, 2008
Jesus and Joshua
As soon as He was approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the miracles which they had seen,
shouting:
"BLESSED IS THE KING WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD;
Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, "Teacher, rebuke Your disciples."But Jesus answered, "I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!" - Luke 19:40
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This passage has always confused me. I've heard sermons where the speaker would say that we should take this literally - that God, through his omnipotence, would make stones have lungs and mouths and they will audibly shout. Now I cannot dismiss this straight out, but it seems like this exegesis has always been short of imagination and thought. Miracles are possible and have happened, but I have always thought that this is a far fetched and simplistic interpretation.
I have also heard some say that the stones represent creation's language talked about Psalm 19 (my personal view until recently). The idea here is that the stones will not literally cry out, but it is a metaphor and representation of all of creation's testimony of it's Creator. This, to me, has always seemed more accurate, but it still leaves questions. Why does he reference stones? Wouldn't it be more sufficient to talk about birds singing or a lion's roar? Matthew Henry came to a position in between these two where the stones or earth will quake (and it did when he was on the cross and all alone).
I think I may have come to a new light on the passage though. I am not saying I am correct, but I think this is worth considering:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Then Joshua said to the people, "You will not be able to serve the LORD, for He is a holy God He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression or your sins. If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, then He will turn and do you harm and consume you after He has done good to you." The people said to Joshua, "No, but we will serve the LORD." Joshua said to the people, "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen for yourselves the LORD, to serve Him." And they said, "We are witnesses." "Now therefore, put away the foreign gods which are in your midst, and incline your hearts to the LORD, the God of Israel." The people said to Joshua, "We will serve the LORD our God and we will obey His voice." So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and made for them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God; and he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak that was by the sanctuary of the LORD. Joshua said to all the people, "Behold, this stone shall be for a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the LORD which He spoke to us; thus it shall be for a witness against you, so that you do not deny your God." - Joshua 24:19-27
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I want to focus on verse 27, but the previous verses give the context, which is important. I am proposing that Jesus was making an allusion to this passage. Far-fetched? Sure, but interesting to examine. They stone's purpose in the passage in Joshua is to be a testimony to the covenant Isreal had made with God - to serve, obey, and incline their heart to God - or as Joshua put it, "do not deny your God." Now we must understand that any Jew would know this story well. It is a pivotal covenant made in the History of the Jews.
So fast forward about a thousand years, and Jesus makes a strange comment about stones crying out. I think he may have very well been alluding to this passage and telling the Pharisees (who for sure knew this passage in Joshua), "If these disciples do not praise me, then the stones will testify against you." In short, God would be denied if no one accepted Him when he came to earth. This allusion does multiple things, but most importantly it tells the Pharisees that he is God. Moreover, it tells them that they will be held accountable for breaking the covenant with God once again (the Isrealites broke this covenant shortly after they made it).
Now is this far-fetched? Maybe, its definitely different from anything I've heard, but we must remember Jesus' context. He was Jewish, talking to Jewish leaders, in a Jewish nation. I think it is easier to grasp in light of that and in light of the fact that we have no problem attributing other sayings of Jesus to be allusions to Old Testament passages.
With all of this said, the message is still ultimately the same: God has been denied and so the stones testify to that. Whether that means they literally speak, are representative, or an allusion to the covenant made with Israel is secondary. Just think about, comment if you wish.
shouting:
"BLESSED IS THE KING WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD;
Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, "Teacher, rebuke Your disciples."But Jesus answered, "I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!" - Luke 19:40
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This passage has always confused me. I've heard sermons where the speaker would say that we should take this literally - that God, through his omnipotence, would make stones have lungs and mouths and they will audibly shout. Now I cannot dismiss this straight out, but it seems like this exegesis has always been short of imagination and thought. Miracles are possible and have happened, but I have always thought that this is a far fetched and simplistic interpretation.
I have also heard some say that the stones represent creation's language talked about Psalm 19 (my personal view until recently). The idea here is that the stones will not literally cry out, but it is a metaphor and representation of all of creation's testimony of it's Creator. This, to me, has always seemed more accurate, but it still leaves questions. Why does he reference stones? Wouldn't it be more sufficient to talk about birds singing or a lion's roar? Matthew Henry came to a position in between these two where the stones or earth will quake (and it did when he was on the cross and all alone).
I think I may have come to a new light on the passage though. I am not saying I am correct, but I think this is worth considering:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Then Joshua said to the people, "You will not be able to serve the LORD, for He is a holy God He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression or your sins. If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, then He will turn and do you harm and consume you after He has done good to you." The people said to Joshua, "No, but we will serve the LORD." Joshua said to the people, "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen for yourselves the LORD, to serve Him." And they said, "We are witnesses." "Now therefore, put away the foreign gods which are in your midst, and incline your hearts to the LORD, the God of Israel." The people said to Joshua, "We will serve the LORD our God and we will obey His voice." So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and made for them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God; and he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak that was by the sanctuary of the LORD. Joshua said to all the people, "Behold, this stone shall be for a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the LORD which He spoke to us; thus it shall be for a witness against you, so that you do not deny your God." - Joshua 24:19-27
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I want to focus on verse 27, but the previous verses give the context, which is important. I am proposing that Jesus was making an allusion to this passage. Far-fetched? Sure, but interesting to examine. They stone's purpose in the passage in Joshua is to be a testimony to the covenant Isreal had made with God - to serve, obey, and incline their heart to God - or as Joshua put it, "do not deny your God." Now we must understand that any Jew would know this story well. It is a pivotal covenant made in the History of the Jews.
So fast forward about a thousand years, and Jesus makes a strange comment about stones crying out. I think he may have very well been alluding to this passage and telling the Pharisees (who for sure knew this passage in Joshua), "If these disciples do not praise me, then the stones will testify against you." In short, God would be denied if no one accepted Him when he came to earth. This allusion does multiple things, but most importantly it tells the Pharisees that he is God. Moreover, it tells them that they will be held accountable for breaking the covenant with God once again (the Isrealites broke this covenant shortly after they made it).
Now is this far-fetched? Maybe, its definitely different from anything I've heard, but we must remember Jesus' context. He was Jewish, talking to Jewish leaders, in a Jewish nation. I think it is easier to grasp in light of that and in light of the fact that we have no problem attributing other sayings of Jesus to be allusions to Old Testament passages.
With all of this said, the message is still ultimately the same: God has been denied and so the stones testify to that. Whether that means they literally speak, are representative, or an allusion to the covenant made with Israel is secondary. Just think about, comment if you wish.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Where is God?
I've already been asked this today since severe storms and 68 tornados ravaged the South, which I am in the thick of living in Memphis. My thesis I am writing deals with this question, although in light of evil done by humans, not nature (or God as some see it). I'm by no means trying to "solve" this existential problem like it is an equation; it's not an equation. This is real, it is personal.
A Professor of mine likes to tell a certain Chassidic story about two Jewish men. If I remember correctly, one is just a man who is at the Synagogue to confess his numerous sins, and the other man is a Rabbi who walks in and listens to the man's prayers. The man starts confessing every little thing he has done - I lied here, I didn't follow the law here, and so on - but near the end the man stops and says, "But wait a minute God, what about you? You have taken sons from their mothers, you have let people become ill, you have let people die, you have let people starve, you have let evil prosper..." and on and on the man goes. Finally as he ends his prayer he tells God, "Well let's calll it even." As soon as the Rabbi heard this he looked at the man and said, "Oh, you have let God off so easy."
It's hard not to feel this way. Chassidism fights for the human being before God, and we want to join in some times. The person you asked me "Where is God?" also talked about how this might be an act of judgment. And while we can't rule this possibility out, I find it hard to beleive that this certain person, or any person, can speak for God. Not saying this cannot happen, but let's not jump the gun. God certainly is sovereign over nature, but this does not mean that he is wrong to not intercede when it gets dangerous. If this were the case, then many laws of nature would be unpredictable, and they would cease to be laws. Moreover, you have a slippery slope problem. When does God not intervene? When you'll just suffer a broken arm? How about a deep cut? When does this end?
We must understand a couple of things about the question itself. First of all, to question God is to recognize Him. And this is very encouraging and healthy. Moses, Abraham, Habbakuk, and Job all questioned God, and God welcomed the questions. There is nothing more encouraging to me than to have a person to wrestle with, and you have to if you want to even accept the question. What about the atheist? Who does he question? Nature? To him or her, your life is nothing more than atoms put together.
Secondly, we must understand that God cares. Even in the cold Old Testament, God looks upon his people in Egypt and cares for them. And God comes and redeems them. In the New Testament, Jesus weeps for the effect sin has upon this world. He feels the pain, and He cares.
Now the key to start to open up this issue is to understand that the basis of all existence is to have relationship. God create the world and man for relationship; not because he needed it but because he wanted it. Moreover, God create woman, not for the purpose of marriage alone, but because man was alone and needed relationship. Man needed another human being first and foremost. Man also was endowed with a relationship with nature. This relationship we have not taken seriously, especially in today's world. But God gave laws for the Hebrews that greatly respected nature. There are laws about how you should treat trees, animals, and so on. For instance, it is against the law to eat in front of a hungry dog. For the Christian, we should take the principles of the laws seriously and understand that God wants us to take care of what he gave us dominion over.
However, with the fall came the severence of all relations. God and man no longer have the same relationship because of sin, and neither does man and nature. Nature now works against man; we have to work to gain food from the ground, the animals are no longer kind but fearful of us and we fear them, and nature groans because it has lost its relationship. Now this is not say that nature has a personality, but it is to say that nature is not the way it intended to be, and it, metaphorically, hurts because of that.
So what does this mean? It doesn't mean that if we treat nature better then nature will treat us better. God does not see it that way. When a relationship is severed or hurt, things change on both ends. Neither side is the same in the way they treat each other, or react towards each other. Nature's fury is brought about by man's severence of the proper relationship with it. When you knock things out of place, they will always start to go against each other.
This also does not mean that because I lied last week, I will get hit by a tornado for judgment. Judgment comes in all shapes and forms, and we forget that death itself is judgment. Neither does this mean that nature is getting back at me for putting too much CO2 in the air. I think what this mainly does mean is that we have lost our way in our relationships with both God and nature, and because of this we have to accept that their are consequences for it that are out of our control that will hurt us. It was no different with God, an old girlfriend, and God says it's no different with nature either.
Again, I do not claim to have solved a great mystery or puzzle. I am merely hoping to give people insights to think about, especially Christians. Any atheist, if he is to be consistent, should not have any problem with what has happened. He may care, but he cannot question. The believer in God does have some things to work out, but it is much more comforting to have a God there who can be supplicated and comforting than to have nothing or anyone to truly address this issue with. God is there to listen and to be challenged. I encourage anyone who has struggles with this to pray and challenge God; if He is who He says He is then I am confident there is an answer to be realized. If not now, eventually.
A Professor of mine likes to tell a certain Chassidic story about two Jewish men. If I remember correctly, one is just a man who is at the Synagogue to confess his numerous sins, and the other man is a Rabbi who walks in and listens to the man's prayers. The man starts confessing every little thing he has done - I lied here, I didn't follow the law here, and so on - but near the end the man stops and says, "But wait a minute God, what about you? You have taken sons from their mothers, you have let people become ill, you have let people die, you have let people starve, you have let evil prosper..." and on and on the man goes. Finally as he ends his prayer he tells God, "Well let's calll it even." As soon as the Rabbi heard this he looked at the man and said, "Oh, you have let God off so easy."
It's hard not to feel this way. Chassidism fights for the human being before God, and we want to join in some times. The person you asked me "Where is God?" also talked about how this might be an act of judgment. And while we can't rule this possibility out, I find it hard to beleive that this certain person, or any person, can speak for God. Not saying this cannot happen, but let's not jump the gun. God certainly is sovereign over nature, but this does not mean that he is wrong to not intercede when it gets dangerous. If this were the case, then many laws of nature would be unpredictable, and they would cease to be laws. Moreover, you have a slippery slope problem. When does God not intervene? When you'll just suffer a broken arm? How about a deep cut? When does this end?
We must understand a couple of things about the question itself. First of all, to question God is to recognize Him. And this is very encouraging and healthy. Moses, Abraham, Habbakuk, and Job all questioned God, and God welcomed the questions. There is nothing more encouraging to me than to have a person to wrestle with, and you have to if you want to even accept the question. What about the atheist? Who does he question? Nature? To him or her, your life is nothing more than atoms put together.
Secondly, we must understand that God cares. Even in the cold Old Testament, God looks upon his people in Egypt and cares for them. And God comes and redeems them. In the New Testament, Jesus weeps for the effect sin has upon this world. He feels the pain, and He cares.
Now the key to start to open up this issue is to understand that the basis of all existence is to have relationship. God create the world and man for relationship; not because he needed it but because he wanted it. Moreover, God create woman, not for the purpose of marriage alone, but because man was alone and needed relationship. Man needed another human being first and foremost. Man also was endowed with a relationship with nature. This relationship we have not taken seriously, especially in today's world. But God gave laws for the Hebrews that greatly respected nature. There are laws about how you should treat trees, animals, and so on. For instance, it is against the law to eat in front of a hungry dog. For the Christian, we should take the principles of the laws seriously and understand that God wants us to take care of what he gave us dominion over.
However, with the fall came the severence of all relations. God and man no longer have the same relationship because of sin, and neither does man and nature. Nature now works against man; we have to work to gain food from the ground, the animals are no longer kind but fearful of us and we fear them, and nature groans because it has lost its relationship. Now this is not say that nature has a personality, but it is to say that nature is not the way it intended to be, and it, metaphorically, hurts because of that.
So what does this mean? It doesn't mean that if we treat nature better then nature will treat us better. God does not see it that way. When a relationship is severed or hurt, things change on both ends. Neither side is the same in the way they treat each other, or react towards each other. Nature's fury is brought about by man's severence of the proper relationship with it. When you knock things out of place, they will always start to go against each other.
This also does not mean that because I lied last week, I will get hit by a tornado for judgment. Judgment comes in all shapes and forms, and we forget that death itself is judgment. Neither does this mean that nature is getting back at me for putting too much CO2 in the air. I think what this mainly does mean is that we have lost our way in our relationships with both God and nature, and because of this we have to accept that their are consequences for it that are out of our control that will hurt us. It was no different with God, an old girlfriend, and God says it's no different with nature either.
Again, I do not claim to have solved a great mystery or puzzle. I am merely hoping to give people insights to think about, especially Christians. Any atheist, if he is to be consistent, should not have any problem with what has happened. He may care, but he cannot question. The believer in God does have some things to work out, but it is much more comforting to have a God there who can be supplicated and comforting than to have nothing or anyone to truly address this issue with. God is there to listen and to be challenged. I encourage anyone who has struggles with this to pray and challenge God; if He is who He says He is then I am confident there is an answer to be realized. If not now, eventually.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Lessons from Andy Gullahorn - Part 2
A good half inch of dust built up on the pew
There were pieces missing from the stain glass
There was a broken lock on of the basement doors
You could open it if you pushed hard enough
It was winter time, the streets were cold as hell
The layed their sleeping bags along the alter rail
It was holy ground
As the word got out the sanctuary filled
of folks who had no other place to call their home
Tonight they'd share a meal, pass the bottle around
Something they were all acustom to alone
The piano was out of tune, some keys don't even work
One guy could play a song out of the hymnal book
It was holy ground
The local priest soon got word
Of the vagrants in the empty church
He was told to go the house of God
Clear them out cause after all
It was holy ground
He was met at the door by a man with open arms
Saying, "Welcome to the one place we belong"
He saw the shiny floors beneath the sleeping bags
He could hear the sound of laughter down the hall
Later on that night as they broke the bread
He asked them if there's room for an extra bed
Because it was holy ground
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This song makes you rethink many things. What is the church really for? What does the building that the church meets in really symbolize? What makes a moment holy? What does this say about how the church views it's mission now? I think many Christian's think their job is to rid the world of sin instead of being the person that reaches out to the sinner so that they can see and know God - the one who rids the world of sin. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is the moto everyone uses knowadays. I agree with this in principle, but I don't know if we need the second part. To love a sinner is obviously not to love the sin no more than loving my brother means I must follow and love everything he does.
Beyond this, what makes a man who is without a home a sinner anymore than you and I? In the book, "Under the Overpass" two men decided to experience what it was like to be homeless so they went to live with the homeless for a summer. They found a lot of them were Christians who just never had someone believe in them and encourage them to get out of the hole the are in. Isn't this typical too? Christians go to "not-so-nice" areas of their town to witness to the homeless and get them saved. What then? We leave them with their Christian homeless shelter. This attitude and practice is unbiblical. We focus too much on the eternal that we forget that Jesus came to give us life now, not one day. The New Testament focuses a lot more on cultivating our new life in Christ than how to get people saved. Discipleship is what we need, not evangelism.
"Holy Ground" nails one main point: what makes holy ground is community with the Godhead and his believers or even just community amongst man. I could say so much more, but this is enough for now.
There were pieces missing from the stain glass
There was a broken lock on of the basement doors
You could open it if you pushed hard enough
It was winter time, the streets were cold as hell
The layed their sleeping bags along the alter rail
It was holy ground
As the word got out the sanctuary filled
of folks who had no other place to call their home
Tonight they'd share a meal, pass the bottle around
Something they were all acustom to alone
The piano was out of tune, some keys don't even work
One guy could play a song out of the hymnal book
It was holy ground
The local priest soon got word
Of the vagrants in the empty church
He was told to go the house of God
Clear them out cause after all
It was holy ground
He was met at the door by a man with open arms
Saying, "Welcome to the one place we belong"
He saw the shiny floors beneath the sleeping bags
He could hear the sound of laughter down the hall
Later on that night as they broke the bread
He asked them if there's room for an extra bed
Because it was holy ground
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This song makes you rethink many things. What is the church really for? What does the building that the church meets in really symbolize? What makes a moment holy? What does this say about how the church views it's mission now? I think many Christian's think their job is to rid the world of sin instead of being the person that reaches out to the sinner so that they can see and know God - the one who rids the world of sin. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is the moto everyone uses knowadays. I agree with this in principle, but I don't know if we need the second part. To love a sinner is obviously not to love the sin no more than loving my brother means I must follow and love everything he does.
Beyond this, what makes a man who is without a home a sinner anymore than you and I? In the book, "Under the Overpass" two men decided to experience what it was like to be homeless so they went to live with the homeless for a summer. They found a lot of them were Christians who just never had someone believe in them and encourage them to get out of the hole the are in. Isn't this typical too? Christians go to "not-so-nice" areas of their town to witness to the homeless and get them saved. What then? We leave them with their Christian homeless shelter. This attitude and practice is unbiblical. We focus too much on the eternal that we forget that Jesus came to give us life now, not one day. The New Testament focuses a lot more on cultivating our new life in Christ than how to get people saved. Discipleship is what we need, not evangelism.
"Holy Ground" nails one main point: what makes holy ground is community with the Godhead and his believers or even just community amongst man. I could say so much more, but this is enough for now.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Lessons from Andy Gullahorn - Part 1
He scoped out the market
All the women and kids
So many distractions
Nobody noticed him
He had a jacket a size too big
A skull cap on his head
Had a couple of homemade bombs
Duct taped them to his chest
God loves that guy
God loves that guy
He followed his heart
to a co-worker's bed
he could have salvedged his marriage with kids
but he chose to leave instead
He thought it was love
but it was just a mirage
so he sits in his car
parked in a closed garage
God loves that guy
God loves that guy
Me on the other hand I can write somebody off
like the last check for a student loan
I can love when its convenient
But its not always convenient
Its not always the easy road
I want to look past the outside
To the well-meaning heart
To the good they forgot they had
Teach me to love, teach me to love
Teach me to love like that
He messed up again
Wanted to disappear
But he can't because he's easy to find
I see him in the mirror
God loves that guy
God loves that guy
so teach me to love, teach me to love
teach me to love like that
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
One of the best songs I've heard in a very long time. Andy hits the heart of what it means to love as God loves: "I want to look past the outside/ to the well-meaning heart/ to the good they forgot they had." That's it! Everyone can learn from this song; I have, and I realized better what it means to love the way I should. Beautiful...
All the women and kids
So many distractions
Nobody noticed him
He had a jacket a size too big
A skull cap on his head
Had a couple of homemade bombs
Duct taped them to his chest
God loves that guy
God loves that guy
He followed his heart
to a co-worker's bed
he could have salvedged his marriage with kids
but he chose to leave instead
He thought it was love
but it was just a mirage
so he sits in his car
parked in a closed garage
God loves that guy
God loves that guy
Me on the other hand I can write somebody off
like the last check for a student loan
I can love when its convenient
But its not always convenient
Its not always the easy road
I want to look past the outside
To the well-meaning heart
To the good they forgot they had
Teach me to love, teach me to love
Teach me to love like that
He messed up again
Wanted to disappear
But he can't because he's easy to find
I see him in the mirror
God loves that guy
God loves that guy
so teach me to love, teach me to love
teach me to love like that
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
One of the best songs I've heard in a very long time. Andy hits the heart of what it means to love as God loves: "I want to look past the outside/ to the well-meaning heart/ to the good they forgot they had." That's it! Everyone can learn from this song; I have, and I realized better what it means to love the way I should. Beautiful...
Friday, January 04, 2008
My Soul's Longing Part 2
"Snatch me, save me, from all that short-lived consolation which comes from creatures; for no created being can fully comfort me or satisfy the longings of my heart. Bind me to Thyself with the unbreakable chain of love; for Thou alone art all sufficient to the soul that loves Thee; and without Thee everything is worthless."
- Thomas a Kempis
- Thomas a Kempis
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
My Soul's Longing
"And therefore all that Thou mayest bestow upon me that is not Thyself, all that Thou mayest reveal to me about Thyself, all that Thou mayest proomise, is too little to satisfy me, as long as I see Thee not, and have not become fully possessed of Thee. For my soul can never be truly at rest or enjoy full content unless it rise above all gifts, above all created existence, and find its rest in Thee alone."
- Thomas a Kempis
- Thomas a Kempis
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Meeting the Searcher on Their Terms
I've discovered this semester, and espeicially the past few days, that Christianity has a bad name. Just in the past two days, my pastor has been called an a** hole by someone who waitressed for him last week, my church has been ridiculed, and a philosophy professor told me that the intrinsic value of a human being has become so widely held that no one needs to justify why they believe it anymore. Therefore, the ends justify the means in morals.
It has come to the point where you can no longer talk about God first. I'm not talking about the Bible, I mean just God in general. You must now start at the existential aspects of life like love, being human, and so on. You must address the here and now before you can talk about God. You have to link their beliefs or their tensions in life to God. It's a scary world out there, full of hopelessness and searching. And its tearing me apart. I spent a good time this morning praying to God to show me how to talk to these people, and help their search.
I'm searching too. All I know right now is that it is sad that you cannot say what church you go to because it turns people away. I guess that isn't too bad though. Nowadays, to talk to a non-Christian who has learned you are a Christian, you have to ask them to suspend their preconcieved ideas about Christianity. It's not looking good for Christianity in America; makes me want to move to Far East.
It has come to the point where you can no longer talk about God first. I'm not talking about the Bible, I mean just God in general. You must now start at the existential aspects of life like love, being human, and so on. You must address the here and now before you can talk about God. You have to link their beliefs or their tensions in life to God. It's a scary world out there, full of hopelessness and searching. And its tearing me apart. I spent a good time this morning praying to God to show me how to talk to these people, and help their search.
I'm searching too. All I know right now is that it is sad that you cannot say what church you go to because it turns people away. I guess that isn't too bad though. Nowadays, to talk to a non-Christian who has learned you are a Christian, you have to ask them to suspend their preconcieved ideas about Christianity. It's not looking good for Christianity in America; makes me want to move to Far East.