i could post a nice Christmas Eve message but i was reading Jeremiah this morning and i was led to read the following cutting verses:
2:13 "my people have committed two sins: they have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water"
2:19 "your wickedness will punish you, your backsliding will rebuke you. consider then and realize how evil and bitter it is for you when you forsake the LORD your God and have no awe of me," declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty.
the Word became flesh for more than a nice Christmas story about a babe in a manger... the Word became flesh to rescue us from our broken cisterns and the evil and bitterness that occurs when we forake the LORD and have no awe of Him, the Lord, the LORD Almighty.
may this move you to be in awe of the Lord as i am moved as i type this now...
Merry Christmas
Friday, December 24, 2004
Thursday, December 23, 2004
the role of the Lord's Supper
the purpose and carrying out of the Lord's Supper has been a topic of discussion, debate, and other types of arguments throughout church history. this entry is not meant to detail every aspect of that debate.
i do want to point one aspect that has challenged my notion of the Lord's Supper. i have viewed Communion throughout my life as an opportunity to remember God's work through Jesus Christ on the cross for my sins and to confess my sins. the bread and grape juice have always been a symbol to me of this work. most of my understanding has come from the 1-2 minute introduction that pastors have given for Communion (this shows just how important those 1-2 minutes are).
the idea that has challenged me is Martin Luther's notion that the purpose of communion is to motivate believers to fellowship. in his "The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ", he opened the view of the Lord’s Supper for the community not just the individual. his argument is that the body of Christ is strengthened because individuals are taking in the body of Christ and this leads to further unity. as Christians, we are bonded to Christ so that it is as if he were what we are, he makes whatever concerns us to concern him as well, and even more than it does us. in turn, we so care for Christ, as if we were what he is, which indeed we shall finally be - we shall be conformed to his likeness.
the result of this is we should have a stronger sense of being the body of Christ.
do i really believe that i am part of the body of Christ in the sense that if someone is hurting then i should be hurting? how often do i really live that out? is that something i ask God to press upon my hardened heart?
how often have i heard pastors focus on the body of Christ (community of saints) during the 1-2 minutes before communion? how has this 1-2 minutes contributed to my heavy focus on my individual, personal walk with Christ at the expense of caring for my brothers and sisters (and also my enemies whom i should love in order to help them be my brothers and sisters)?
does this shed any light on Jesus' example prayer where he calls us to forgive others for their debts? how can we expect God to forgive us our sins at the Communion table if we do not have our brothers and sisters in mind?
to be blunt, wouldn't it look silly if i took the Lord's Supper by myself? what does that reveal?
i have more to reflect on but this is a starting point. i would love for anybody who reads this to add a comment to let me know about their impressions or experiences with the Lord's Supper.
i do want to point one aspect that has challenged my notion of the Lord's Supper. i have viewed Communion throughout my life as an opportunity to remember God's work through Jesus Christ on the cross for my sins and to confess my sins. the bread and grape juice have always been a symbol to me of this work. most of my understanding has come from the 1-2 minute introduction that pastors have given for Communion (this shows just how important those 1-2 minutes are).
the idea that has challenged me is Martin Luther's notion that the purpose of communion is to motivate believers to fellowship. in his "The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ", he opened the view of the Lord’s Supper for the community not just the individual. his argument is that the body of Christ is strengthened because individuals are taking in the body of Christ and this leads to further unity. as Christians, we are bonded to Christ so that it is as if he were what we are, he makes whatever concerns us to concern him as well, and even more than it does us. in turn, we so care for Christ, as if we were what he is, which indeed we shall finally be - we shall be conformed to his likeness.
the result of this is we should have a stronger sense of being the body of Christ.
do i really believe that i am part of the body of Christ in the sense that if someone is hurting then i should be hurting? how often do i really live that out? is that something i ask God to press upon my hardened heart?
how often have i heard pastors focus on the body of Christ (community of saints) during the 1-2 minutes before communion? how has this 1-2 minutes contributed to my heavy focus on my individual, personal walk with Christ at the expense of caring for my brothers and sisters (and also my enemies whom i should love in order to help them be my brothers and sisters)?
does this shed any light on Jesus' example prayer where he calls us to forgive others for their debts? how can we expect God to forgive us our sins at the Communion table if we do not have our brothers and sisters in mind?
to be blunt, wouldn't it look silly if i took the Lord's Supper by myself? what does that reveal?
i have more to reflect on but this is a starting point. i would love for anybody who reads this to add a comment to let me know about their impressions or experiences with the Lord's Supper.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
decision point
what determines whether we react selfishly to a situation?
i was driving from new hampshire to new jersey today. at one point, the cars came to a complete stop on one of the interstates. my initial reaction inside was to think "this sucks! now we are going to arrive 30-60 minutes later than expected". for some reason, something (my conscience, God, my memory, something) inside of me raised the idea that a horrible accident might have occurred.
quickly, i shifted my thoughts toward praying for the person or persons who were suffering as a result of the accident. (i thank my sister for this because she always prays for people in ambulences whenever they go by)
5 miles down the road i saw a massive tractor trailer off the side of the road on its side. there were countless medical personnel as well as many distraught observers. i realized right away that the person who drove off the road would not be around for Christmas this year and that his or her family would not have him or her present.
back to my original question. what determines how i react to a situation like that traffic jam? will i ever have an immediate selfless reaction or will i always think about myself first? can God work in and through a person to move them to a point where his or her immediate thought is "i should pray for the person who was in the accident"?
i was driving from new hampshire to new jersey today. at one point, the cars came to a complete stop on one of the interstates. my initial reaction inside was to think "this sucks! now we are going to arrive 30-60 minutes later than expected". for some reason, something (my conscience, God, my memory, something) inside of me raised the idea that a horrible accident might have occurred.
quickly, i shifted my thoughts toward praying for the person or persons who were suffering as a result of the accident. (i thank my sister for this because she always prays for people in ambulences whenever they go by)
5 miles down the road i saw a massive tractor trailer off the side of the road on its side. there were countless medical personnel as well as many distraught observers. i realized right away that the person who drove off the road would not be around for Christmas this year and that his or her family would not have him or her present.
back to my original question. what determines how i react to a situation like that traffic jam? will i ever have an immediate selfless reaction or will i always think about myself first? can God work in and through a person to move them to a point where his or her immediate thought is "i should pray for the person who was in the accident"?
Saturday, December 18, 2004
the purpose of the church
i must admit that i have been holding off on writing because i haven't been able to formulate my ideas into a readable and respectable presentation. i am not concerned with that here because my mind is boiling over with ideas that i need to start turning over. These ideas are all a work in progress. i'm sure i will add/remove/change the content of what i write as many times as the days i have yet to live.
i have written a few times about how my study of church history has broadened and challenged my understanding of the church. the question that currently presses me the most is how do i account for the reality that a majority of the church's existence was different than what i have experienced in my 28 years of life. in other words, the last 400 years or so have produced a wide variety of denominations since the Reformation and the make-up of these churches has always been considered "the right way" for me. but this "right way" has existed for a minority (far minority) of the church's lifespan. how do i reconcile this with my church experience today? the better question is, how can i learn from the church's history spanning 1600 or so years before the Reformation? how can i reassess my experience based on the church's pendulum swings over the years?
This question plays out in five areas (in no specific order or importance):
1. purpose of the church
2. view of the Lord's Supper
3. deification or co-redeeming
4. baptism
5. role of tradition
First, i will consider the purpose of the church. the Catholic view of a follower of Christ, from what i have gathered in my readings, is they are a Christian because they are part of the church. contrarily, the Protestant view is an individual becomes a Christian by putting their faith in Jesus Christ and then they join a church. this shift has contributed to the weakening of the community of faith because the recent focus fuels the consumer culture of the church. why should a individual believer stay with a church if the church (local body of believers located in a building with a specific set of programs, worship style(s), and pastor with a level of 'quality') does not serve them? in contrast, if a person's is faith is more closely tied with the local body of Christ, then doesn't that remove the personal taste test and shift the focus to the body of Christ? the difference is subtle but very eye-opening. the view that ties a person's faith more closely with the community and not merely with the individual's "personal walk" provides a stronger foundation for the body of Christ being salt and light of the world (sharing the gospel) as well as being a set of people who love each other and lay their lives down for one another.
my immediate response, based on my years in the church, asks how does this shift back to the church-first view account for an individual's salvation. i think that this is not the most pertinent question for this discussion. the issue in question, at least for me in this discussion, is not how to get more people saved but how the church should be the body of Christ to a dying world.
i believe that the Protestant church has a lot to learn from the prior 1600 years of the church's existence and that I shouldn't blow off those 1600 years due to my lack of understanding of three or four controversial issues that i haven't taken the time or energy to investigate, namely, the form of bread/wine at communion, 'worship' of Mary, prayer formulas for forgiveness, and worship of statues that shed blood or tears. i have started to understand the background of these issues through my study of church history and i can already see how they are not as divisive as i have always thought.
in summary of my first subject, the purpose of the church needs to be re-examined in light of more than the past 400 years and the notion of a person being a Christian because they are part of the church as opposed to becoming a Christian and then joining a church should be considered again.
could this be part of the explanation i have been looking for to account for my recent internal frustrations with salvation campaigns that are run to convert people like market-experts look to convert people to their products? does this provide further backing to the notion of the Christian life being a long race instead of merely crossing the starting line (see Missing the Point by Campolo/McLaren)? is the church's only purpose to save as many individuals as possible or is it also to then be salt and light to the world? in many ways the answer is both but in the Protestant world it is more likely that they focus on the former while the latter suffers. the pendulum has swung toward the individualized view of faith. this swing should be questioned and balanced by incorporating a focus on the church as also playing a role in salvation.
the other four topics will have to wait for another time (2. view of the Lord's Supper, 3. deification or co-redeeming, 4. baptism, 5. role of tradition)
i have written a few times about how my study of church history has broadened and challenged my understanding of the church. the question that currently presses me the most is how do i account for the reality that a majority of the church's existence was different than what i have experienced in my 28 years of life. in other words, the last 400 years or so have produced a wide variety of denominations since the Reformation and the make-up of these churches has always been considered "the right way" for me. but this "right way" has existed for a minority (far minority) of the church's lifespan. how do i reconcile this with my church experience today? the better question is, how can i learn from the church's history spanning 1600 or so years before the Reformation? how can i reassess my experience based on the church's pendulum swings over the years?
This question plays out in five areas (in no specific order or importance):
1. purpose of the church
2. view of the Lord's Supper
3. deification or co-redeeming
4. baptism
5. role of tradition
First, i will consider the purpose of the church. the Catholic view of a follower of Christ, from what i have gathered in my readings, is they are a Christian because they are part of the church. contrarily, the Protestant view is an individual becomes a Christian by putting their faith in Jesus Christ and then they join a church. this shift has contributed to the weakening of the community of faith because the recent focus fuels the consumer culture of the church. why should a individual believer stay with a church if the church (local body of believers located in a building with a specific set of programs, worship style(s), and pastor with a level of 'quality') does not serve them? in contrast, if a person's is faith is more closely tied with the local body of Christ, then doesn't that remove the personal taste test and shift the focus to the body of Christ? the difference is subtle but very eye-opening. the view that ties a person's faith more closely with the community and not merely with the individual's "personal walk" provides a stronger foundation for the body of Christ being salt and light of the world (sharing the gospel) as well as being a set of people who love each other and lay their lives down for one another.
my immediate response, based on my years in the church, asks how does this shift back to the church-first view account for an individual's salvation. i think that this is not the most pertinent question for this discussion. the issue in question, at least for me in this discussion, is not how to get more people saved but how the church should be the body of Christ to a dying world.
i believe that the Protestant church has a lot to learn from the prior 1600 years of the church's existence and that I shouldn't blow off those 1600 years due to my lack of understanding of three or four controversial issues that i haven't taken the time or energy to investigate, namely, the form of bread/wine at communion, 'worship' of Mary, prayer formulas for forgiveness, and worship of statues that shed blood or tears. i have started to understand the background of these issues through my study of church history and i can already see how they are not as divisive as i have always thought.
in summary of my first subject, the purpose of the church needs to be re-examined in light of more than the past 400 years and the notion of a person being a Christian because they are part of the church as opposed to becoming a Christian and then joining a church should be considered again.
could this be part of the explanation i have been looking for to account for my recent internal frustrations with salvation campaigns that are run to convert people like market-experts look to convert people to their products? does this provide further backing to the notion of the Christian life being a long race instead of merely crossing the starting line (see Missing the Point by Campolo/McLaren)? is the church's only purpose to save as many individuals as possible or is it also to then be salt and light to the world? in many ways the answer is both but in the Protestant world it is more likely that they focus on the former while the latter suffers. the pendulum has swung toward the individualized view of faith. this swing should be questioned and balanced by incorporating a focus on the church as also playing a role in salvation.
the other four topics will have to wait for another time (2. view of the Lord's Supper, 3. deification or co-redeeming, 4. baptism, 5. role of tradition)
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
too many lines of thought...
i haven't written anything in awhile because i haven't been able to wrestle any ideas down that have been jumping around my brain. every day i think, "i have to write something to that blog because my brain is about to explode"...
yesterday, a discussion on art in the church led to 349384089340 thought lines...
i plan to finally bring some thoughts back to this blog very soon.
yesterday, a discussion on art in the church led to 349384089340 thought lines...
i plan to finally bring some thoughts back to this blog very soon.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
the truth
sports is an empty endeavor sucking the life out of all males who put their faith in teams that only serve to let them down...
(now try to argue against me that context has nothing to do with our view of life, God, and the world)
(now try to argue against me that context has nothing to do with our view of life, God, and the world)
Saturday, December 04, 2004
current snapshot
i have noticed a potential problem with Christians who seek to teach others from their experience. i particularly see this when the they teach on issues that have to do with sanctification, or the process of growing in holiness. the problem is that an individual naturally teaches from his or her point of view. more specically, an individual tends to share from his or her specific snapshot of the world at that point in time.
what do i mean by a snapshot? if all people were to take a mental, experience-based picture of their current lives (today, at this hour, at this minute, at this second), then they each would have a unique view of the world based on their experiences. this view pervades all aspects of life, including spiritual growth.
the role of this snapshot impacts an individual's teaching message more than many would like to admit. for example, a pastor can share a message that details how a person should deal with a specific sin. this message may include Biblical references, personal experiences, and, most likely, ways to apply the lesson.
do his specific application points apply to everyone who hears?
what happens if someone in the community is just starting on his or her journey with Christ?
how does the message strike a person who has been a follower of Christ for 60 years?
what is the impact of the application points on someone who tends to be more rules-focused than freedom-focused? or vice versa?
i have witnessed well-intentioned pastors teach convicting messages on sin and then provide very specific application points. this is what pastors are called to do, right?
sounds good, but how does a pastor's specific profile of experiences, lessons, and spiritual growth path impact his or her lesson to the community?
how does the pastor's life journey, including successes, failtures, disappointments, surprises, influence his or her perspective?
would a pastor's message be more effective if he or she included a description of a spiritual path in the sermon, lesson, or writing?
i have witnessed how some pastors share very specific applications which end up serving more as specific laws in the life of the hearers. these laws cause people to focus on the action instead of the attitude (and required maturity) behind the action.
one example i have seen is a pastor taught on immorality in the media and then made the specific call for all people listening to avoid all R-rated movies. this recommendation is a good one but does this simple recommendation undercut a listener's potential journey in coming to this conclusion through his or her spiritual growth over time? would listeners own the idea or behavior if they arrived at it through a process of seeing the harm of going to R-rated movies on their own?
where does this leave the pastor or teacher in terms of how to share specific applications of a message or the Word of God? am i suggesting that a pastor should avoid all references to specific "take home" points? i am not recommending a complete removal of the final 5-10 minutes of a sermon or lesson but i am recommending that these ideas be assessed in light of the specific teacher's personal experiences.
one potential way to account for the teacher and the listener's spiritual journeys in the communication of a lesson is for the teacher to share some (if not all) of the process that he/she went through to arrive at his/her conclusions or perspectives. this would provide the listener with an idea of how the teacher arrived at his or conclusions.
how much more would this reveal the power of God's Word in the process?
how much would this reveal the power of prayer in the process?
how much more would this reveal the power of community in this process?
in conclusion, a snapshot is just that - a single reference point that is understood most initimately by the individual who took the picture. however, the snapshot is best explained to other not by describing the content of that specific picture but the background information that led the individual to arrive at that point.
where did this idea come from? i have experienced the spiritual journey of Augustine through his classic book Confessions. i learned more from walking with him through his life as portrayed in the book then i would from sitting in an Augustine seminar which included the 7 Habits of St. Augustine...
what do i mean by a snapshot? if all people were to take a mental, experience-based picture of their current lives (today, at this hour, at this minute, at this second), then they each would have a unique view of the world based on their experiences. this view pervades all aspects of life, including spiritual growth.
the role of this snapshot impacts an individual's teaching message more than many would like to admit. for example, a pastor can share a message that details how a person should deal with a specific sin. this message may include Biblical references, personal experiences, and, most likely, ways to apply the lesson.
do his specific application points apply to everyone who hears?
what happens if someone in the community is just starting on his or her journey with Christ?
how does the message strike a person who has been a follower of Christ for 60 years?
what is the impact of the application points on someone who tends to be more rules-focused than freedom-focused? or vice versa?
i have witnessed well-intentioned pastors teach convicting messages on sin and then provide very specific application points. this is what pastors are called to do, right?
sounds good, but how does a pastor's specific profile of experiences, lessons, and spiritual growth path impact his or her lesson to the community?
how does the pastor's life journey, including successes, failtures, disappointments, surprises, influence his or her perspective?
would a pastor's message be more effective if he or she included a description of a spiritual path in the sermon, lesson, or writing?
i have witnessed how some pastors share very specific applications which end up serving more as specific laws in the life of the hearers. these laws cause people to focus on the action instead of the attitude (and required maturity) behind the action.
one example i have seen is a pastor taught on immorality in the media and then made the specific call for all people listening to avoid all R-rated movies. this recommendation is a good one but does this simple recommendation undercut a listener's potential journey in coming to this conclusion through his or her spiritual growth over time? would listeners own the idea or behavior if they arrived at it through a process of seeing the harm of going to R-rated movies on their own?
where does this leave the pastor or teacher in terms of how to share specific applications of a message or the Word of God? am i suggesting that a pastor should avoid all references to specific "take home" points? i am not recommending a complete removal of the final 5-10 minutes of a sermon or lesson but i am recommending that these ideas be assessed in light of the specific teacher's personal experiences.
one potential way to account for the teacher and the listener's spiritual journeys in the communication of a lesson is for the teacher to share some (if not all) of the process that he/she went through to arrive at his/her conclusions or perspectives. this would provide the listener with an idea of how the teacher arrived at his or conclusions.
how much more would this reveal the power of God's Word in the process?
how much would this reveal the power of prayer in the process?
how much more would this reveal the power of community in this process?
in conclusion, a snapshot is just that - a single reference point that is understood most initimately by the individual who took the picture. however, the snapshot is best explained to other not by describing the content of that specific picture but the background information that led the individual to arrive at that point.
where did this idea come from? i have experienced the spiritual journey of Augustine through his classic book Confessions. i learned more from walking with him through his life as portrayed in the book then i would from sitting in an Augustine seminar which included the 7 Habits of St. Augustine...
Sunday, November 28, 2004
teaching lessons...
why is it that i always feel the need to teach someone a lesson when i feel wronged?
an everyday example occurs in driving. i see this happen frequently (yes, i must admit that i want to do this but i honestly cannot recall if i have ever done it) - a person who is cut off on a highway decides to drive ahead of that person and then cut them off. why? in order to teach that person a lesson. what is the lesson? i see it as "i want to teach you how much it angered me that you cut me off!!!".
in a different arena, i tend to do this in relationships as well. someone will do something that frustrates me or angers me and my response is to immediately try to locate another time when i can do the same thing to them. my goal is to show that person what it feels like have that happen to them AND then (somehow) to have them understand my frustration.
does this ever work?
i haven't seen it work. instead, i never seem to be able to sit down to talk about why i acted that way. i am never able to relate my "payback" action with the original action. at the same time, i do not see how that person would learn anything if i actually was able to speak to them about why i acted the way i did.
this plays out in many ways. i label this as people trying play God by teaching lessons to others who have wronged us.
maybe that is why Jesus said "so in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
the 'golden rule' is often overlooked because it is overused. or is it? do we actually live this out? especially, in the situations like driving or in our closest relationships... or do we try to go around this command in order to take control and 'teach' others...?
an everyday example occurs in driving. i see this happen frequently (yes, i must admit that i want to do this but i honestly cannot recall if i have ever done it) - a person who is cut off on a highway decides to drive ahead of that person and then cut them off. why? in order to teach that person a lesson. what is the lesson? i see it as "i want to teach you how much it angered me that you cut me off!!!".
in a different arena, i tend to do this in relationships as well. someone will do something that frustrates me or angers me and my response is to immediately try to locate another time when i can do the same thing to them. my goal is to show that person what it feels like have that happen to them AND then (somehow) to have them understand my frustration.
does this ever work?
i haven't seen it work. instead, i never seem to be able to sit down to talk about why i acted that way. i am never able to relate my "payback" action with the original action. at the same time, i do not see how that person would learn anything if i actually was able to speak to them about why i acted the way i did.
this plays out in many ways. i label this as people trying play God by teaching lessons to others who have wronged us.
maybe that is why Jesus said "so in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
the 'golden rule' is often overlooked because it is overused. or is it? do we actually live this out? especially, in the situations like driving or in our closest relationships... or do we try to go around this command in order to take control and 'teach' others...?
Friday, November 26, 2004
discipleship - a lost calling?
what ever happened to the focus on discipleship? did the word scare people because it was to churchy? did the idea grow old so people abandoned it for more flashy terms?
no matter what, Jesus called disciples, is calling disciples, and left us with the mission to make disciples.
i realized this past week why i haven't focused on my calling as a disciple. i came to relate to discipleship with following rules or the law. the focus on grace by many of my teachers and pastors led me to eschew focusing on the commands in the Bible. even moreso, one teacher explaned of the sermon of the mount as being a sermon to people who were still under the law, and, therefore, not meant for us to live up to. his point was to show that Jesus was setting up the people to ask the question "what must i do to be saved?" and that Paul would later bring the gospel of grace in order to account for the unreachable commands.
this led me to, consciously or unconsciously, disregard the entire sermon on the mount as a source of commands that i was expected to obey. an entire set of commands on anger, lust, telling the truth, loving enemies, going the extra mile, prayer, fasting, and more and more was lost. this led to an overall discounting of many of the commands of God in order to avoid falling into the trap of the law. "christianity is a relationship, not a religion" is the phrase that came to represent this thinking.
there are elements of truth to that pastor's explanation of the sermon on the mount and to the view of Christianity as a relationship. the danger, however, is that people will focus only on God's grace without realizing that they are called to discipleship which includes obedience. the pharisees hid from God behind the law. i more easily hide from God behind grace. each person needs to consider which one, and to what degree, he or she uses to hide from God. right now, i am on the grace-heavy side.
what opened the door on these thoughts? Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but he came to fulfill them. Jesus fulfilled the law. if I am in Christ, then I am connected (vine/branches) to the one who fulfilled the law. this means that i am now capable, with God's working, to live out the law as well. granted, i will fail but that possibility or, better put, opportunity is available.
this is not the following of commands in order to earn adoption. this is an opportunity to grow as a disciple after a person is part of the body of Christ.
disciples learn from their leader. disciples grow into their leaders.
do i take Jesus' commands seriously? my prayer is that i will do so.
no matter what, Jesus called disciples, is calling disciples, and left us with the mission to make disciples.
i realized this past week why i haven't focused on my calling as a disciple. i came to relate to discipleship with following rules or the law. the focus on grace by many of my teachers and pastors led me to eschew focusing on the commands in the Bible. even moreso, one teacher explaned of the sermon of the mount as being a sermon to people who were still under the law, and, therefore, not meant for us to live up to. his point was to show that Jesus was setting up the people to ask the question "what must i do to be saved?" and that Paul would later bring the gospel of grace in order to account for the unreachable commands.
this led me to, consciously or unconsciously, disregard the entire sermon on the mount as a source of commands that i was expected to obey. an entire set of commands on anger, lust, telling the truth, loving enemies, going the extra mile, prayer, fasting, and more and more was lost. this led to an overall discounting of many of the commands of God in order to avoid falling into the trap of the law. "christianity is a relationship, not a religion" is the phrase that came to represent this thinking.
there are elements of truth to that pastor's explanation of the sermon on the mount and to the view of Christianity as a relationship. the danger, however, is that people will focus only on God's grace without realizing that they are called to discipleship which includes obedience. the pharisees hid from God behind the law. i more easily hide from God behind grace. each person needs to consider which one, and to what degree, he or she uses to hide from God. right now, i am on the grace-heavy side.
what opened the door on these thoughts? Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but he came to fulfill them. Jesus fulfilled the law. if I am in Christ, then I am connected (vine/branches) to the one who fulfilled the law. this means that i am now capable, with God's working, to live out the law as well. granted, i will fail but that possibility or, better put, opportunity is available.
this is not the following of commands in order to earn adoption. this is an opportunity to grow as a disciple after a person is part of the body of Christ.
disciples learn from their leader. disciples grow into their leaders.
do i take Jesus' commands seriously? my prayer is that i will do so.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
my new way of learning
6 years in the tech world is the bridge between my first college experience at uva and my current experience at princeton seminary. i used to learn by writing everything down over and over. i used to write papers by hand and then type them.
now, i can't even imagine doing any of that. i still write things down at points in order to practice recalling information through a different medium. however, i now type everything.
in fact, i studied for my 2 midterms by creating a basic (admittedly 1995-esque) website with all the information. i picked up on a lot of the information simply by interacting with it as i put the site together. even better, i then could quickly jump from page to page to review the material.
i have come to realize how my brain has been trained to take in information via the web better than any other medium. it makes sense. it shows how much has changed in the past 6 years...
so what does that mean for the people that i some day want to teach? shouldn't i take into account that most of them (assuming the audience has access to the web and can use it) learn through that medium as well? is hearing the best way to learn anymore??? not for me...
now, i can't even imagine doing any of that. i still write things down at points in order to practice recalling information through a different medium. however, i now type everything.
in fact, i studied for my 2 midterms by creating a basic (admittedly 1995-esque) website with all the information. i picked up on a lot of the information simply by interacting with it as i put the site together. even better, i then could quickly jump from page to page to review the material.
i have come to realize how my brain has been trained to take in information via the web better than any other medium. it makes sense. it shows how much has changed in the past 6 years...
so what does that mean for the people that i some day want to teach? shouldn't i take into account that most of them (assuming the audience has access to the web and can use it) learn through that medium as well? is hearing the best way to learn anymore??? not for me...
Sunday, November 07, 2004
religion of no religion
religion is a term that is under fire by many christians because many christian teachers in evangelical churches point out that christianity isn't a religion but, instead, a relationship. there is a lot of truth to that statement but to a majority of people outside of churches, christianity is still a religion.
one working defintion of a religion is a set of ways that a person orders his or her life based on a set of motivations. we are all motivated by something. one motivation for followers of a religion is fear. a problem exists in the form of fear and they embrace a religion which provides security from that fear. fear should not be the primary reason for following a religion, and perhaps it shouldn't play into it at all. in the christian context, some follow christianity mostly because of the fear of going to hell and the security of going to heaven. this motivation is the weakest of all, especially in terms of people going beyond an "i'm in" or "i'm out" mentality. let me be clear, there are superior motivations to fear/security but i am pointing out fear/security to show why manner people flock to religions for reasons that are not deeper than a pure reaction to a extremely negative outcome.
there is a religion that many people do not see because it is not an organized, visible religion. this religion is, what i call, the religion of no religion. the same attributes are included this religion as others - fear and security.
the religion of no religion includes a fear of commitment and the security of non-commitment. Why do people fear commitment? There is a level of uncertainty with commiting to something. People are also scared of being burned. Finally, people have witnessed many bad examples of commitments that have failed (marriages, other relationships, financial decisions, etc). The fear of commitment is one side of the issue. The other side is the security of non-commitment. What does this security offer? Non-commitment provides people with control, power and the ability to leave options open. The Bible describes this as one aspect of pride. The response "I will not let anyone control my life because I know better than anyone else how to run my life" sums up this pride.
The religion of no religion is the combination of this fear and security.
A gift certificate is a fitting analogy for this religion. I love and hate receiving gift certificates for my birthday or christmas. I love them because I have the ability to select what I want to buy with the certificate. However, I hate them because I often feel paralyzed by them. Why do I refuse to use them? I always feel like there may be something better out there to buy. I also do not want to regret my purchasing decision. Overall, I lose the sense of purchasing power that I have when I redeem that gift certificate. A specific gift certificate, such as Best Buy, is tough enough. A gift certificate to an entire mall is even more difficult.
I think you get the picture. Our search for a religion is similar. There are many choices but if make a choice then we lose our 'purchasing power'. All the other feelings associated with commitments, as listed, come into play as well.
What are we to do? We could sit and do nothing. However, there isn't an option to sit still in this life. The Bible speaks specifically to this. The Bible doesn't tell us anything new that we do not already know or have experienced. I am more convinced every day that the Bible describes the reality in which we live but it pulls together these realities into the greater story of how God works in this world. We are all part of that story.
Romans 12:1-2 describes a decision to leave the religion of no religion and to commit to being a follower of Christ. The author, Paul, challenges the readers, in view of God's mercy, to offer their bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God as a spiritual act of worship. This is a decision (who makes that decision is a discussion that some love to talk about for years).
The next part indirectly describes what happens if we do not make that decision. 12:2 states that we should no longer be conformed to the pattern of this world. Inherent in this statement is the reality that we are being molded into the pattern of this world. We are being formed like play-doh. Do you ever feel like you are being pressured to become something that you are not? This pressure can come from all kinds of places.
Advertising is an example of how this works. Advertisements are not looking out for your good. They are designed to manipulate you so that you buy the product. Your attitudes, desires, and eventually purchasing habits are being conformed to a specific pattern. In a similar manner, the Bible describes the world system as a similar conforming agent that is shaping you whether you know it or not (much like advertising). Advertising is definitely an ingredient in the world system recipe.
The choice of following the religion of no religion is not a neutral choice. You are choosing to remain as a target of the world system's molding without any response.
The decision to follow Christ (make a commitment, offer your body as a living sacrifice) is SO much more than following a religion based on fear and a need for security. There is a reality of heaven and hell but the motivation of the fear of hell is not what leads to a deep commitment to Jesus Christ. The God who created the heavens and the earth is weaving a story and you are part of that story. God, in his passionate love, sent Jesus to live a perfect life, die on the cross and be resurrected so that you could believe in this love, commit to following Christ and become a new creation and be a part of the community of those who are equipped with the ability and the Holy Spirit to push back against the world system. 2 Cor 5:17 describes this as a transition to becoming a new creation. Philippians 1:6 describes this as God being the one who began a good work in you and will continue that work until the day of Christ Jesus.
This work is a process that begins when you commit to following Christ.
The religion of no religion is equivalent to not using a gift certificate. You may feel like you have power, options, and safety from regrets. However, you simply letting the opportunity to use the certificate pass and you are not realizing the value of what you could buy. For Christianity, you are not buying anything. God bought you at a high price through the death of Jesus. Instead, the purchasing analogy is that you can make a decision to start following Christ now and then begin to realize the benefits of being in relationship with God and in relationship with the community of those who are also following Christ.
one working defintion of a religion is a set of ways that a person orders his or her life based on a set of motivations. we are all motivated by something. one motivation for followers of a religion is fear. a problem exists in the form of fear and they embrace a religion which provides security from that fear. fear should not be the primary reason for following a religion, and perhaps it shouldn't play into it at all. in the christian context, some follow christianity mostly because of the fear of going to hell and the security of going to heaven. this motivation is the weakest of all, especially in terms of people going beyond an "i'm in" or "i'm out" mentality. let me be clear, there are superior motivations to fear/security but i am pointing out fear/security to show why manner people flock to religions for reasons that are not deeper than a pure reaction to a extremely negative outcome.
there is a religion that many people do not see because it is not an organized, visible religion. this religion is, what i call, the religion of no religion. the same attributes are included this religion as others - fear and security.
the religion of no religion includes a fear of commitment and the security of non-commitment. Why do people fear commitment? There is a level of uncertainty with commiting to something. People are also scared of being burned. Finally, people have witnessed many bad examples of commitments that have failed (marriages, other relationships, financial decisions, etc). The fear of commitment is one side of the issue. The other side is the security of non-commitment. What does this security offer? Non-commitment provides people with control, power and the ability to leave options open. The Bible describes this as one aspect of pride. The response "I will not let anyone control my life because I know better than anyone else how to run my life" sums up this pride.
The religion of no religion is the combination of this fear and security.
A gift certificate is a fitting analogy for this religion. I love and hate receiving gift certificates for my birthday or christmas. I love them because I have the ability to select what I want to buy with the certificate. However, I hate them because I often feel paralyzed by them. Why do I refuse to use them? I always feel like there may be something better out there to buy. I also do not want to regret my purchasing decision. Overall, I lose the sense of purchasing power that I have when I redeem that gift certificate. A specific gift certificate, such as Best Buy, is tough enough. A gift certificate to an entire mall is even more difficult.
I think you get the picture. Our search for a religion is similar. There are many choices but if make a choice then we lose our 'purchasing power'. All the other feelings associated with commitments, as listed, come into play as well.
What are we to do? We could sit and do nothing. However, there isn't an option to sit still in this life. The Bible speaks specifically to this. The Bible doesn't tell us anything new that we do not already know or have experienced. I am more convinced every day that the Bible describes the reality in which we live but it pulls together these realities into the greater story of how God works in this world. We are all part of that story.
Romans 12:1-2 describes a decision to leave the religion of no religion and to commit to being a follower of Christ. The author, Paul, challenges the readers, in view of God's mercy, to offer their bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God as a spiritual act of worship. This is a decision (who makes that decision is a discussion that some love to talk about for years).
The next part indirectly describes what happens if we do not make that decision. 12:2 states that we should no longer be conformed to the pattern of this world. Inherent in this statement is the reality that we are being molded into the pattern of this world. We are being formed like play-doh. Do you ever feel like you are being pressured to become something that you are not? This pressure can come from all kinds of places.
Advertising is an example of how this works. Advertisements are not looking out for your good. They are designed to manipulate you so that you buy the product. Your attitudes, desires, and eventually purchasing habits are being conformed to a specific pattern. In a similar manner, the Bible describes the world system as a similar conforming agent that is shaping you whether you know it or not (much like advertising). Advertising is definitely an ingredient in the world system recipe.
The choice of following the religion of no religion is not a neutral choice. You are choosing to remain as a target of the world system's molding without any response.
The decision to follow Christ (make a commitment, offer your body as a living sacrifice) is SO much more than following a religion based on fear and a need for security. There is a reality of heaven and hell but the motivation of the fear of hell is not what leads to a deep commitment to Jesus Christ. The God who created the heavens and the earth is weaving a story and you are part of that story. God, in his passionate love, sent Jesus to live a perfect life, die on the cross and be resurrected so that you could believe in this love, commit to following Christ and become a new creation and be a part of the community of those who are equipped with the ability and the Holy Spirit to push back against the world system. 2 Cor 5:17 describes this as a transition to becoming a new creation. Philippians 1:6 describes this as God being the one who began a good work in you and will continue that work until the day of Christ Jesus.
This work is a process that begins when you commit to following Christ.
The religion of no religion is equivalent to not using a gift certificate. You may feel like you have power, options, and safety from regrets. However, you simply letting the opportunity to use the certificate pass and you are not realizing the value of what you could buy. For Christianity, you are not buying anything. God bought you at a high price through the death of Jesus. Instead, the purchasing analogy is that you can make a decision to start following Christ now and then begin to realize the benefits of being in relationship with God and in relationship with the community of those who are also following Christ.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
nothing
i have nothing in the tank. nothing. i can't remember the last time i felt like this. there is something strangely great about not having the ability to think. my brain is fried. i honestly think i can get more out of watching sesame street with my daughter than trying to think about anything else...
i don't know if anyone reads this blog but i felt like sharing my thoughts (whatever is left of them)
i don't know if anyone reads this blog but i felt like sharing my thoughts (whatever is left of them)
Friday, October 29, 2004
i love coffee but does coffee love me?
i have grown to love coffee. i stayed away from coffee for years. i still can't believe that i made it through my entire time at uva without drinking a full cup of coffee (i had a sip of dunkin donuts coffee but that doesn't count).
here is something to ponder... i started thinking about this after reading about the role of fasting and abstinence in one of my readings by Augustine.
coffee makes me more thirsty because it dries me out
my thirst leads to my body desiring to eat because my body thinks that is hungry when it is really thirsty
this increases my overall level of desire
desires never lead to anything good if they are left unchecked
the sin nature leans toward leaving desires unchecked
therefore, coffee leads to sin
does coffee love me?
i am not proposing a law. i am just thinking out loud about how a mature follower of Christ should consider the small daily decisions that could possibly lead to holiness as opposed the inferior alternative.
does that mean i should change my focus to loving water...?
i love water and water loves me???
is anyone reading this but me...? if so, call me on my new cell phone at 609-672-6300 or post something here or write me an email at jeffreydlee2000@yahoo.com...
here is something to ponder... i started thinking about this after reading about the role of fasting and abstinence in one of my readings by Augustine.
coffee makes me more thirsty because it dries me out
my thirst leads to my body desiring to eat because my body thinks that is hungry when it is really thirsty
this increases my overall level of desire
desires never lead to anything good if they are left unchecked
the sin nature leans toward leaving desires unchecked
therefore, coffee leads to sin
does coffee love me?
i am not proposing a law. i am just thinking out loud about how a mature follower of Christ should consider the small daily decisions that could possibly lead to holiness as opposed the inferior alternative.
does that mean i should change my focus to loving water...?
i love water and water loves me???
is anyone reading this but me...? if so, call me on my new cell phone at 609-672-6300 or post something here or write me an email at jeffreydlee2000@yahoo.com...
Thursday, October 28, 2004
role of images
4-5 years ago, i read a convincing chapter about idols in J.I. Packer's book Knowing God. Packer took the second commandment and formed an argument against forming any image of God, both physical or mental. the argument made complete sense to me and i adopted that perspective since that time. the part that resonated the most with me was how easily we can create a mental image of God that fits our desires or our self-justifications. for example, i have heard the description "the God i worship is a God of love, he would never judge anyone's sin" and that is the only example i needed to prove that forming a mental image is wrong.
however, i just read Three Treatises On The Divine Images by John of Damascus. John was a Christian monk who lived in the 8th century in Muslim lands and he defended the use of icons in the church for Christian worship. there was a massive dispute regarding icons that threatened to further split the church at that time.
John's main point was the icons could and should be used in Christian worship. he weaved three themes to make his case. the first theme was that we could venerate icons without worshipping the icon itself. in other words, we could honor the subject of the icon without making the icon out to be a god. his next theme was that we can create an icon of Christ because Christ, in the incarnation, was the image of the invisible God. in short, because Christ was visible, then we can make an icon of Him while the invisible God should not be made into an icon. he drew attention to the fact that the OT law was written before God became man in order to guard against making an image for the invisible (i.e. the golden calf). lastly, John stated that the images and places in the OT were a shadow of the future. icons are valid if they serve the same role in pointing us to the future or, again, to the object of veneration. for example, the hand-crafted cherubim in the tabernacle were an image of something in heaven but the purpose of the cherubim there was to point to the future. he used other examples of entities that foreshadowed coming realities.
these points challenged my view of icons in the church. his point regarding the OT law guarding people against making images of the invisible God resonates with me as does his point of Jesus being the visible incarnation of the invisible God. he also tripped me up with his examples of heavenly entities being rendered (as commanded by God) as icons in the tabernacle and temple as pointers to the future. however, his points do not answer the problems of an individual's interpretation of the target of his veneration. in other words, my view of Christ, though he was visible at the time, influences my rendering of Christ. this is evidenced in all of the different pictures of Jesus throughout church history. i remember my Sunday school room featuring a tanned southern-California Jesus picture. this plays out in a variety of ways.
overall, i still do not trust a person's potential (or most likely) self-centered approach to an icon creation (whether conscious or unconscious). on the other hand, i do not agree with the complete removal of icons. like all other matters of worship and spiritual disciplines, i believe that a Christian must apply a godly maturity to the handling of these undefined issues. an icon can exist in a way to venerate a saint or Christ, but each person should hold fast to God in prayer for how they interact with this image. running away from a potential problem is not the right answer, especially when there is a potential blessing in the same exact target of affection.
i have witnessed the removal of all icons in the 'modern' church. the main purpose for this removal was to create a safe environment for seekers and/or post-Christians who were burned by church experiences in the past. the worship of the images did not seem to play a role in the removal.
what are the purposes of these icons and images? do they break the 2nd commandment in that we should not make an image of anything in heaven?
i have lived on both sides from reading J.I. Packer's chapter on idols and John of Damascus' three treatises on the divine images. i encourage you to read them on as well and enter into the dialog of the 8th century iconoclasts (icon smashers) and iconophiles (icon lovers).
as you can, i have...
however, i just read Three Treatises On The Divine Images by John of Damascus. John was a Christian monk who lived in the 8th century in Muslim lands and he defended the use of icons in the church for Christian worship. there was a massive dispute regarding icons that threatened to further split the church at that time.
John's main point was the icons could and should be used in Christian worship. he weaved three themes to make his case. the first theme was that we could venerate icons without worshipping the icon itself. in other words, we could honor the subject of the icon without making the icon out to be a god. his next theme was that we can create an icon of Christ because Christ, in the incarnation, was the image of the invisible God. in short, because Christ was visible, then we can make an icon of Him while the invisible God should not be made into an icon. he drew attention to the fact that the OT law was written before God became man in order to guard against making an image for the invisible (i.e. the golden calf). lastly, John stated that the images and places in the OT were a shadow of the future. icons are valid if they serve the same role in pointing us to the future or, again, to the object of veneration. for example, the hand-crafted cherubim in the tabernacle were an image of something in heaven but the purpose of the cherubim there was to point to the future. he used other examples of entities that foreshadowed coming realities.
these points challenged my view of icons in the church. his point regarding the OT law guarding people against making images of the invisible God resonates with me as does his point of Jesus being the visible incarnation of the invisible God. he also tripped me up with his examples of heavenly entities being rendered (as commanded by God) as icons in the tabernacle and temple as pointers to the future. however, his points do not answer the problems of an individual's interpretation of the target of his veneration. in other words, my view of Christ, though he was visible at the time, influences my rendering of Christ. this is evidenced in all of the different pictures of Jesus throughout church history. i remember my Sunday school room featuring a tanned southern-California Jesus picture. this plays out in a variety of ways.
overall, i still do not trust a person's potential (or most likely) self-centered approach to an icon creation (whether conscious or unconscious). on the other hand, i do not agree with the complete removal of icons. like all other matters of worship and spiritual disciplines, i believe that a Christian must apply a godly maturity to the handling of these undefined issues. an icon can exist in a way to venerate a saint or Christ, but each person should hold fast to God in prayer for how they interact with this image. running away from a potential problem is not the right answer, especially when there is a potential blessing in the same exact target of affection.
i have witnessed the removal of all icons in the 'modern' church. the main purpose for this removal was to create a safe environment for seekers and/or post-Christians who were burned by church experiences in the past. the worship of the images did not seem to play a role in the removal.
what are the purposes of these icons and images? do they break the 2nd commandment in that we should not make an image of anything in heaven?
i have lived on both sides from reading J.I. Packer's chapter on idols and John of Damascus' three treatises on the divine images. i encourage you to read them on as well and enter into the dialog of the 8th century iconoclasts (icon smashers) and iconophiles (icon lovers).
as you can, i have...
Friday, October 22, 2004
1950 years...
i just finished my first stretch of seminary studies and i have arrived at my 'reading week'. the first couple of months have been more than i could have imagined. the Lord has challenged my little view of Him and His actions throughout all of human history. the daily interactions with God's Word, notions of philosophy, interpretative tools, the characters of church history and aspects of inquiring after God have served as a means to disturb my faith and to challenge me to come before God and ask for discernment and understanding, especially in light of His gospel for this generation in light of the past generations.
however, i feel robbed.
that is the only way to express my feelings and thoughts right now.
i am going to express my thoughts as a stream of consciousness now so get ready. i feel like my faith has been limited (unintentionally or perhaps intentionally) by my focus only being on my 20th/21st century faith and the Bible alone. i have always been the first person to state that a small group should only study the Bible and that a study of a non-Biblical book is selling out. i have also rejected the role of tradition, experience and the church (combination of the prior two in some ways) in teaching me about God and His ways.
i feel robbed because i have started to interact with some of the great followers of Christ from over the years. i have been blessed to have the opportunity to read St. Augustine's writings and thoughts from early church fathers. i have also seen how many serious followers of Christ over the years have had ideas revealed to them that do not fit into my neat God picture.
however, why is that i have not encountered these people or ideas until now?
why did it take me coming to seminary to 'stumble' upon these great works and ideas?
part of it is because i didn't have time to read these works when i was out in the work world. i honestly have to say that i also pre-judged these works as boring and irrelavent.
those are the easy excuses / explanations.
how about this one? my protestant upbringing seems to have set up barriers to the 1950 years or so of church writings that followed the events of the book of Acts until now. my faith has always been Genesis - Acts (some Revelation but that is another story) and 1976 (year of birth) until now.
i have been blown away by how much St. Augustine's struggles are similar to mine. he lived in a completely different world but his writings in Confessions could be in a blog similar to this one. Augustine pursued God through Jesus Christ. Augustine struggled with sin. Augustine struggled with his family. Augustine lived and breathed God's Word. Augustine could have been a close friend if i lived in the 5th century. however, something was broken in my Christian learning that kept me from "meeting" Augustine.
i don't know exactly what those barriers were (or are) but i sense that part of my calling is to help others realize that these types of barriers exist AND that a rich set of encounters with God can be experienced through reading (with the Holy Spirit's discernment) these works. i still believe that the Bible is the #1 choice of study but not at the expense of disregarding all other works of people who are also striving to live a life worthy of the gospel.
in other words, we all need to open our eyes to the lives of the saints beyond Hebrews 11 and the end of Acts. who directly or indirectly shut door on the great cloud of witnesses? far be it that i should be someone who helps keep that door shut...
however, i feel robbed.
that is the only way to express my feelings and thoughts right now.
i am going to express my thoughts as a stream of consciousness now so get ready. i feel like my faith has been limited (unintentionally or perhaps intentionally) by my focus only being on my 20th/21st century faith and the Bible alone. i have always been the first person to state that a small group should only study the Bible and that a study of a non-Biblical book is selling out. i have also rejected the role of tradition, experience and the church (combination of the prior two in some ways) in teaching me about God and His ways.
i feel robbed because i have started to interact with some of the great followers of Christ from over the years. i have been blessed to have the opportunity to read St. Augustine's writings and thoughts from early church fathers. i have also seen how many serious followers of Christ over the years have had ideas revealed to them that do not fit into my neat God picture.
however, why is that i have not encountered these people or ideas until now?
why did it take me coming to seminary to 'stumble' upon these great works and ideas?
part of it is because i didn't have time to read these works when i was out in the work world. i honestly have to say that i also pre-judged these works as boring and irrelavent.
those are the easy excuses / explanations.
how about this one? my protestant upbringing seems to have set up barriers to the 1950 years or so of church writings that followed the events of the book of Acts until now. my faith has always been Genesis - Acts (some Revelation but that is another story) and 1976 (year of birth) until now.
i have been blown away by how much St. Augustine's struggles are similar to mine. he lived in a completely different world but his writings in Confessions could be in a blog similar to this one. Augustine pursued God through Jesus Christ. Augustine struggled with sin. Augustine struggled with his family. Augustine lived and breathed God's Word. Augustine could have been a close friend if i lived in the 5th century. however, something was broken in my Christian learning that kept me from "meeting" Augustine.
i don't know exactly what those barriers were (or are) but i sense that part of my calling is to help others realize that these types of barriers exist AND that a rich set of encounters with God can be experienced through reading (with the Holy Spirit's discernment) these works. i still believe that the Bible is the #1 choice of study but not at the expense of disregarding all other works of people who are also striving to live a life worthy of the gospel.
in other words, we all need to open our eyes to the lives of the saints beyond Hebrews 11 and the end of Acts. who directly or indirectly shut door on the great cloud of witnesses? far be it that i should be someone who helps keep that door shut...
Saturday, October 16, 2004
creation and reality
i just finished a book for my philosophy course titled creation and reality by a german scholar named Michael Welker. the book included many themes that i have been wrestling with for the past 4-5 years. ironically (or not so), i am assigned to teach this tuesday on this material. i needed a place to record some raw post-reflections from the reading so i decided to use this place. feel free to read or run away as you see fit...
the overall question of the philosophy course Paradigms and Progress is what is "good" theology and if the notion of "good" theology exists, then do theologians (all of us are theologians whether we say so or not) have the ablility to rank theologies.
michael welker presents a theology of creation and reality in his book that is titled the same. this theology is necessitated by the fact that there is a collapse in the prevalent view of theism, mostly in western europe, some in north america. he attributes this collapse to over-simplified, reductionist, and vague views on important theological issues. he uses the term 'false abstraction' to describe these views. overall, his goal is to expose how most people do not challenge these false abstractions and the result is a dulling of biblical traditions' concepts and sets of concepts. the dulling is a result of over-simplifying complex issues by limiting the input into the debate on one hand while on the other hand the dulling also is a result of including multiple accomodations to prevailing habits of thought and specific conceptions of rationality. welker describes the latter use of biblical theology as a cipher. the outcome of this dulling is that biblical knowledge loses its orienting power in our non-oriented world. in light of this challenge, welker takes on issues of (1) the creation of heaven and earth, (2) angels and God's presence in creation, (3) creation, the image of God and the mandate of dominion, and (4) creation and sin.
before i jump into (3) and (4), i want to point out some themes that i have considerd in the past 4-5 years that re-surfaced in these readings. one theme is my observation that most people do not think. that sounds arrogant but i am not referring to people's ability to think or, better expressed, their thinking "ceiling". everyone has different ceilings of thought and it doesn't make anyone better or worse for appearing or potentially even being more 'brilliant' than others. remember, i was the one who didn't make the 'gifted class' in elementary school and i still mock that whole idea. with that said, i move on to a person's willingness to think. our increasingly internet-driven, attention-deficit world shapes us into people who are forced to filter all information and make decisions on the value of that information immediately. search engine results, stock tickers, espn bottom lines, physical mailings (credit card applications!), electronic mail inboxes, are all examples. the list goes on and on. each of us owns a specific information assessment profile that is shaped by our interests, experiences, and critical thought processes. we quickly jettison any information or entry point into information that we judge (immediately) to be of little to no value. welker indirectly keys in on this reality by stating that people have rejected over-simplified, vague, and reductionist views of very important theological issues. in other words, people are immediately deleting these views from their mental (over-burdened) inboxes...
the role of "good" theology is to provide valuable (as perceived by the receiver) insights and views of very important theological issues that are Biblically-based, inter-disciplinary in nature. and allow for tensions among competing beliefs (pluralistic) so that these renewed solutions provide an orienting influence in our non-oriented world.
let's jump into (3). welker tackles the issue of the relationship, in creation, between the image of God and the mandate of dominion. he applies the critique to numerous prevailing views. he raises the observation of how humans have always viewed themselves as the central figure in creation. two results of this human-centered view are the ecological crisis and the systematic underpriviledging of women (at points, oppression). Christians have been tagged with being anti-environment and anti-women due to the use of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. on the other hand, Christians have pointed out the pro-environment and female equality aspects of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. welker rejects the over-simplified reasons given by both and moves toward a renewed critical view of the creation texts that accounts for the complexity of the relationship between humans created in the image of God, the mandate to have dominion, and the relation of man and woman.
he questions the over-simplified explanations given by people who use Gen 1 and Gen 2 to explain these issues. most people, use Gen 1 and/or Gen 2 to attack or defend their views. Gen 1 includes the reference for humans to trample under and subjugate the earth but it also includes the equality of man and woman. Gen 2 includes the reference for humans to till and keep the earth but it also includes the hierarchy of man ruling over woman. there is not an option to pick and choose based on historical lines because there is not a clear timeline to these events. in other words, we cannot 'correct' Gen 1's view of subjugating the earth with Gen 2's reference to care for the earth. we are left with choosing one or the other.
there are three ways to view the image of God as described in Gen 1.
does the image of God refer to the relation of created humankind as male and female?
does the image of God refer to the so-called mandate of domination?
does the image of God refer to the connection of both aspects, the connection of the relation of man and woman with the mandate of dominion?
these are classic questions... questions that will be dealt with in future entries. i am going to stop now because this is turning into a book summary instead of any original thinking...
the overall question of the philosophy course Paradigms and Progress is what is "good" theology and if the notion of "good" theology exists, then do theologians (all of us are theologians whether we say so or not) have the ablility to rank theologies.
michael welker presents a theology of creation and reality in his book that is titled the same. this theology is necessitated by the fact that there is a collapse in the prevalent view of theism, mostly in western europe, some in north america. he attributes this collapse to over-simplified, reductionist, and vague views on important theological issues. he uses the term 'false abstraction' to describe these views. overall, his goal is to expose how most people do not challenge these false abstractions and the result is a dulling of biblical traditions' concepts and sets of concepts. the dulling is a result of over-simplifying complex issues by limiting the input into the debate on one hand while on the other hand the dulling also is a result of including multiple accomodations to prevailing habits of thought and specific conceptions of rationality. welker describes the latter use of biblical theology as a cipher. the outcome of this dulling is that biblical knowledge loses its orienting power in our non-oriented world. in light of this challenge, welker takes on issues of (1) the creation of heaven and earth, (2) angels and God's presence in creation, (3) creation, the image of God and the mandate of dominion, and (4) creation and sin.
before i jump into (3) and (4), i want to point out some themes that i have considerd in the past 4-5 years that re-surfaced in these readings. one theme is my observation that most people do not think. that sounds arrogant but i am not referring to people's ability to think or, better expressed, their thinking "ceiling". everyone has different ceilings of thought and it doesn't make anyone better or worse for appearing or potentially even being more 'brilliant' than others. remember, i was the one who didn't make the 'gifted class' in elementary school and i still mock that whole idea. with that said, i move on to a person's willingness to think. our increasingly internet-driven, attention-deficit world shapes us into people who are forced to filter all information and make decisions on the value of that information immediately. search engine results, stock tickers, espn bottom lines, physical mailings (credit card applications!), electronic mail inboxes, are all examples. the list goes on and on. each of us owns a specific information assessment profile that is shaped by our interests, experiences, and critical thought processes. we quickly jettison any information or entry point into information that we judge (immediately) to be of little to no value. welker indirectly keys in on this reality by stating that people have rejected over-simplified, vague, and reductionist views of very important theological issues. in other words, people are immediately deleting these views from their mental (over-burdened) inboxes...
the role of "good" theology is to provide valuable (as perceived by the receiver) insights and views of very important theological issues that are Biblically-based, inter-disciplinary in nature. and allow for tensions among competing beliefs (pluralistic) so that these renewed solutions provide an orienting influence in our non-oriented world.
let's jump into (3). welker tackles the issue of the relationship, in creation, between the image of God and the mandate of dominion. he applies the critique to numerous prevailing views. he raises the observation of how humans have always viewed themselves as the central figure in creation. two results of this human-centered view are the ecological crisis and the systematic underpriviledging of women (at points, oppression). Christians have been tagged with being anti-environment and anti-women due to the use of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. on the other hand, Christians have pointed out the pro-environment and female equality aspects of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. welker rejects the over-simplified reasons given by both and moves toward a renewed critical view of the creation texts that accounts for the complexity of the relationship between humans created in the image of God, the mandate to have dominion, and the relation of man and woman.
he questions the over-simplified explanations given by people who use Gen 1 and Gen 2 to explain these issues. most people, use Gen 1 and/or Gen 2 to attack or defend their views. Gen 1 includes the reference for humans to trample under and subjugate the earth but it also includes the equality of man and woman. Gen 2 includes the reference for humans to till and keep the earth but it also includes the hierarchy of man ruling over woman. there is not an option to pick and choose based on historical lines because there is not a clear timeline to these events. in other words, we cannot 'correct' Gen 1's view of subjugating the earth with Gen 2's reference to care for the earth. we are left with choosing one or the other.
there are three ways to view the image of God as described in Gen 1.
does the image of God refer to the relation of created humankind as male and female?
does the image of God refer to the so-called mandate of domination?
does the image of God refer to the connection of both aspects, the connection of the relation of man and woman with the mandate of dominion?
these are classic questions... questions that will be dealt with in future entries. i am going to stop now because this is turning into a book summary instead of any original thinking...
Friday, October 15, 2004
archaeology and the Bible
today i ran into the anticipated description of archaeology and the Bible. the example given was joshua 6 and the battle of Jericho. the archaeology findings show that there were no inhabitants at the Jericho location directly after 1550 BCE. the findings did show that people lived there years before and that people settled there far later as well. estimates, using the Bible, locate the Jericho narrative to have occurred around 1200 BCE.
many questions come from this. my response 2-3 years ago would be to quickly research and point out other evidence that shows that Jericho truly was inhabited during the 1200 BCE time mark. other parts of me would want to deconstruct the dating methods and/or the choice of locations. my initial response was to question the location selected for study. how do archaeologists truly know where to dig for a specific city?
i'm sure there are good answers to these questions.
i have some more questions however. my questions are how should i respond to these findings. should i ignore them and go into a retreat of commitment? should i take them at face value and then try to reconstruct my faith in terms of Bible that has stories that didn't really happen?
furthermore, how should i care for the people under my leadership when i serve in the church? should i ignore this information and only talk about when somebody reads these ideas in a book or on the internet and then challenges the Bible to my face?
these questions remind me of a struggle i went through 5-6 years ago. i met with mormon missionaries for months (elder fluckiger will remember). one of my arguments (the key word being 'argument') against the mormon faith was the archaeological evidence against the existence of the Nephites and Lamanites in America during the time of the wars cited in the Book of Mormon. i started asking tough questions about the text and its relationship to archaeology. i started to see, however, that i couldn't answer these questions myself for my Christian faith and the Bible. i decided to stop engaging these questions due to my inability to continue pressing the Mormons with questions while not being able to answer them myself.
where does that leave me now?
i will continue to search. i definitely see the potential slippery slide with this. if Jericho was not inhabited and Joshua 6 is only recorded for the Jewish people as a story for their national identity, then did the kings of Israel exist, namely, King David? how do i keep this from slipping all the way to Jesus himself and the death/resurrection/ascension?
i see a wide spectrum. one side is a view that the Biblical narratives are a set of stories pulled together by a specific redactor who wanted to make theological points following theological themes. the other side is a extreme literal position that takes every description of the Bible to be historical fact that also includes specific references that apply in a type/antitype relationship all the way to the Christ's return (and beyond).
i will continue to search and pray regarding these things...
many questions come from this. my response 2-3 years ago would be to quickly research and point out other evidence that shows that Jericho truly was inhabited during the 1200 BCE time mark. other parts of me would want to deconstruct the dating methods and/or the choice of locations. my initial response was to question the location selected for study. how do archaeologists truly know where to dig for a specific city?
i'm sure there are good answers to these questions.
i have some more questions however. my questions are how should i respond to these findings. should i ignore them and go into a retreat of commitment? should i take them at face value and then try to reconstruct my faith in terms of Bible that has stories that didn't really happen?
furthermore, how should i care for the people under my leadership when i serve in the church? should i ignore this information and only talk about when somebody reads these ideas in a book or on the internet and then challenges the Bible to my face?
these questions remind me of a struggle i went through 5-6 years ago. i met with mormon missionaries for months (elder fluckiger will remember). one of my arguments (the key word being 'argument') against the mormon faith was the archaeological evidence against the existence of the Nephites and Lamanites in America during the time of the wars cited in the Book of Mormon. i started asking tough questions about the text and its relationship to archaeology. i started to see, however, that i couldn't answer these questions myself for my Christian faith and the Bible. i decided to stop engaging these questions due to my inability to continue pressing the Mormons with questions while not being able to answer them myself.
where does that leave me now?
i will continue to search. i definitely see the potential slippery slide with this. if Jericho was not inhabited and Joshua 6 is only recorded for the Jewish people as a story for their national identity, then did the kings of Israel exist, namely, King David? how do i keep this from slipping all the way to Jesus himself and the death/resurrection/ascension?
i see a wide spectrum. one side is a view that the Biblical narratives are a set of stories pulled together by a specific redactor who wanted to make theological points following theological themes. the other side is a extreme literal position that takes every description of the Bible to be historical fact that also includes specific references that apply in a type/antitype relationship all the way to the Christ's return (and beyond).
i will continue to search and pray regarding these things...
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
a simple penny
i don't have the energy to write anything real today about my recent mental wrestlings with the formation of Christianity in the early church or the role of creation/fall in mortal and natural evil or the theme of how the gospel is wonderfully flexible in order to speak to all people groups and cultures throughout all of time...
i will stick with a story about a simple penny. i was walking to panera bread today and i realized that i didn't have any change. i knew that a toasted cinnamon crunch bagel with plain creme cheese would cost me $2.01. one of my #1 pet peeves (i wonder who came up with that term) is receiving 99 cents of change from a financial transaction.
i thought "everyone tosses pennies to the ground, there has to be one somewhere on the way". within 15 walking steps, i located 3 pennies on the ground. the bagel still cost $2.01 but i didn't have to worry about getting 99 cents in my pocket (4 cents of which would probably have inadvertently been sent to the ground for someone else to find later).
is life sometimes that easy? what is right in front of us that we do not try find? what annoying experiences can we avoid by looking for a simple penny...?
i will stick with a story about a simple penny. i was walking to panera bread today and i realized that i didn't have any change. i knew that a toasted cinnamon crunch bagel with plain creme cheese would cost me $2.01. one of my #1 pet peeves (i wonder who came up with that term) is receiving 99 cents of change from a financial transaction.
i thought "everyone tosses pennies to the ground, there has to be one somewhere on the way". within 15 walking steps, i located 3 pennies on the ground. the bagel still cost $2.01 but i didn't have to worry about getting 99 cents in my pocket (4 cents of which would probably have inadvertently been sent to the ground for someone else to find later).
is life sometimes that easy? what is right in front of us that we do not try find? what annoying experiences can we avoid by looking for a simple penny...?
Friday, October 08, 2004
"find" option for life...
my view of the world is dominated by my interactions with computers. i no longer have the ability to scan and find what i need to locate.
here are some examples:
1. finding a book on a bookshelf.
2. finding the right brand of toothpaste in a super market
3. finding a specific word on a page of a book
4. finding a word in a dictionary (english or greek)
5. finding a friend in a crowd
wouldn't it be great if i could have a Find option for these things in the real world. i have grown so accustomed to using the Find or Search option with any/all technological devices that i find myself needing it for real life as well.
what does that reveal?
here are some examples:
1. finding a book on a bookshelf.
2. finding the right brand of toothpaste in a super market
3. finding a specific word on a page of a book
4. finding a word in a dictionary (english or greek)
5. finding a friend in a crowd
wouldn't it be great if i could have a Find option for these things in the real world. i have grown so accustomed to using the Find or Search option with any/all technological devices that i find myself needing it for real life as well.
what does that reveal?
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
the dark cloud
i used to refer to the constant pressure of school as the "dark cloud". i have found myself under the dark cloud again even though the subjects of my study are incredible. i finished a paper last night at 2 AM and turned around for an 8 AM class. my body wanted to shut down but i continue to press on.
i could write about the distinction between moral evil and natural evil. i could write about the challenges of considering the existence of death in animals before humans were "on the scene" but i need to give more thought to the assumptions behind this ideas. one thing is certain, i am learning in all kinds of subject areas right now...
- Biblical interpretation using Greek
- Old Testament survey course
- Church History survey course
- Philosophy - is there a notion of progress in theology? what is "good" theology?
- Theology - intro course titled "Inquiring After God" using readings from early church writers as well as contemporary reflections
- Speech...
much to learn... but not tonight...
i could write about the distinction between moral evil and natural evil. i could write about the challenges of considering the existence of death in animals before humans were "on the scene" but i need to give more thought to the assumptions behind this ideas. one thing is certain, i am learning in all kinds of subject areas right now...
- Biblical interpretation using Greek
- Old Testament survey course
- Church History survey course
- Philosophy - is there a notion of progress in theology? what is "good" theology?
- Theology - intro course titled "Inquiring After God" using readings from early church writers as well as contemporary reflections
- Speech...
much to learn... but not tonight...
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
church history is dangerous
i admittedly am ignorant of church history. the subject of church history has always finished last in my ordering of subjects and therefore has never been considered beyond a random reference every once and awhile.
my focus has always been on the here and now. i expose myself as a person who questions the past in terms of institutions as well as methods. what can a past of endless denominations and battles have to teach me? isn't it better just to forget everything and start fresh? i guess that my start-up side continues to rage on even as i consider the ways of the church.
i have come face to face the reality that church history is alive and dangerous. i am starting to see that reading about the past shows me how little i know about the present. this is a very very basic fact for those who love history and understand the purpose of studying it. all of us need to discover the value of studying history by ourselves.
i am learning classic lessons.
the theological conflicts that i have encountered in my life are not new conflicts. in fact, a disagreement about typology was first raised in the 2nd century.
the scary part is that i see how much the church has changed over the years. i am starting to question the assumption that the 20th/21st century church is the best way to "do church". that assumption looks foolish now that i write it but isn't that what most people (still including myself) live under.
on a different (more positive) note, i am amazed at how close i feel to the writers of the past when i read their works. the amazing figures like st augustine express spiritual truths and spiritual struggles in similar ways, even if they composed them in a different time period, in a different place, in a different language (latin, greek, etc)...
there truly is a connection between the followers of Christ throughout the years of church. my prayer is that i will live with the understanding of that connection and learn how to not be surprised by anything that comes my way as a leader in the church for nothing is new under the sun...
my focus has always been on the here and now. i expose myself as a person who questions the past in terms of institutions as well as methods. what can a past of endless denominations and battles have to teach me? isn't it better just to forget everything and start fresh? i guess that my start-up side continues to rage on even as i consider the ways of the church.
i have come face to face the reality that church history is alive and dangerous. i am starting to see that reading about the past shows me how little i know about the present. this is a very very basic fact for those who love history and understand the purpose of studying it. all of us need to discover the value of studying history by ourselves.
i am learning classic lessons.
the theological conflicts that i have encountered in my life are not new conflicts. in fact, a disagreement about typology was first raised in the 2nd century.
the scary part is that i see how much the church has changed over the years. i am starting to question the assumption that the 20th/21st century church is the best way to "do church". that assumption looks foolish now that i write it but isn't that what most people (still including myself) live under.
on a different (more positive) note, i am amazed at how close i feel to the writers of the past when i read their works. the amazing figures like st augustine express spiritual truths and spiritual struggles in similar ways, even if they composed them in a different time period, in a different place, in a different language (latin, greek, etc)...
there truly is a connection between the followers of Christ throughout the years of church. my prayer is that i will live with the understanding of that connection and learn how to not be surprised by anything that comes my way as a leader in the church for nothing is new under the sun...
Sunday, September 26, 2004
not listening... again
i have a hard time listening to people. many of my friends and family say that i am a good listener but i have more than enough counter-evidence to prove otherwise.
one example of where i didn't listen was when people told me that i was going to experience a wide range of beliefs at princeton seminary. i gave mental agreement to that thought but i didn't realize how true that was until last week.
why are people here at princeton seminary? some seem to be here, like me, to prepare for full-time Christian ministry in the church. others seem to be here to pursue a PhD in order to teach. others seem to be here to train for teaching history in other institutions.
my first question (direct or indirect) for each person i meet is not what they believe but why they are here. that question gives me immediate insight into the potential range of beliefs that person may bring to the table. i can learn a lot from other people here. some things i may not want to learn. 3 years will show me what i need to take and what i need to leave...
one example of where i didn't listen was when people told me that i was going to experience a wide range of beliefs at princeton seminary. i gave mental agreement to that thought but i didn't realize how true that was until last week.
why are people here at princeton seminary? some seem to be here, like me, to prepare for full-time Christian ministry in the church. others seem to be here to pursue a PhD in order to teach. others seem to be here to train for teaching history in other institutions.
my first question (direct or indirect) for each person i meet is not what they believe but why they are here. that question gives me immediate insight into the potential range of beliefs that person may bring to the table. i can learn a lot from other people here. some things i may not want to learn. 3 years will show me what i need to take and what i need to leave...
Saturday, September 25, 2004
the problem of context
i am finally running into the question of the role of context in the thoughts of people on a variety of subjects, the most important being their view of God and the world. i have always believed that there is an absolute expression of truth found ultimately in God. i have always disregarded any points put forward by people who emphasized the role of an individual's personal experiences. i mainly pushed away these ideas because i saw the slippery slope that would lead to a world that did not offer any fixed places to grab hold.
this post is titled 'the problem of context' because i am facing the discussions of the real implications of an individual's context - culture, experiences, bias, etc. i still belive that there is a fixed place to grab hold in God but i must now figure out what that looks like (sounds like, feels like) in light of these ideas.
a friend from the past confronted me once by saying that i would be a great muslim if i grew up in another culture. one of the underlying themes of that assessment was that she saw me as a product of my experiences and culture. this is what some have called a plausibility structure i believe (if i understand my readings correctly).
how does this problem play out? in my history? in the history of Christianity? in the history of the human search for God?
i have an answer in my head but i want to continue lifting up these questions to prayer, to the God who does answer the prayers of those who seek his face.
this post is titled 'the problem of context' because i am facing the discussions of the real implications of an individual's context - culture, experiences, bias, etc. i still belive that there is a fixed place to grab hold in God but i must now figure out what that looks like (sounds like, feels like) in light of these ideas.
a friend from the past confronted me once by saying that i would be a great muslim if i grew up in another culture. one of the underlying themes of that assessment was that she saw me as a product of my experiences and culture. this is what some have called a plausibility structure i believe (if i understand my readings correctly).
how does this problem play out? in my history? in the history of Christianity? in the history of the human search for God?
i have an answer in my head but i want to continue lifting up these questions to prayer, to the God who does answer the prayers of those who seek his face.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
seriously...
i heard this quote regarding a view of scripture today...
"you don't have to take it literally but you should take it seriously"
my response is that i don't have to take that statement literally but i should take it seriously
"you don't have to take it literally but you should take it seriously"
my response is that i don't have to take that statement literally but i should take it seriously
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
The Mind At Work
i ran across this description of how our mind works... this is "game film" into how my mind works too.
"The mind ranges to and fro, and spreads out, and advances forward with a quickness which has become a proverb, and subtlety and versatility which baffle investigation. It passes on from point to point, gaining one by some indication; another on a probability; then availing itself of an association; then falling back on some received law; next seizing on testimony; then committing itself to some popular impression, or some inward instinct, or some obscure memory; and thus it makes progress not unlike a clamberer on a steep cliff, who, by quick eye, prompt hand, and firm foot, ascends how he knows not himself, by personal endowments and by practice, rather than by rule, leaving no track behind him, and unable to teach another. It is not too much to say that the stepping by which great geniuses scale the mountains of truth is as unsafe and precarious to men in general, as the ascent of a skillful mountaineer up a literal crag. It is a way which they alone can take; and its justification lies in their success. And such mainly is the way in which all men, gifted or not gited, commonly reason - not by rule, but by an inward faculty."
John Henry Newman
"The mind ranges to and fro, and spreads out, and advances forward with a quickness which has become a proverb, and subtlety and versatility which baffle investigation. It passes on from point to point, gaining one by some indication; another on a probability; then availing itself of an association; then falling back on some received law; next seizing on testimony; then committing itself to some popular impression, or some inward instinct, or some obscure memory; and thus it makes progress not unlike a clamberer on a steep cliff, who, by quick eye, prompt hand, and firm foot, ascends how he knows not himself, by personal endowments and by practice, rather than by rule, leaving no track behind him, and unable to teach another. It is not too much to say that the stepping by which great geniuses scale the mountains of truth is as unsafe and precarious to men in general, as the ascent of a skillful mountaineer up a literal crag. It is a way which they alone can take; and its justification lies in their success. And such mainly is the way in which all men, gifted or not gited, commonly reason - not by rule, but by an inward faculty."
John Henry Newman
Friday, September 17, 2004
what is theology?
i don't have a nice clean answer to the question "what is theology?". i'm sure that i will have one very shortly as i fire up my seminary studies here at princeton seminary.
coming in, my basic definition is that a person's theology is the way a person views God and all the different relational aspects of that God to that person, others and the world. most of my life, i shunned theology because i viewed it as an intellectual exercise for people that had way too much free time. in recent years, however, i have seen how a person's theology truly impacts his/her everyday life.
what does a person believe about God and his response to the wrong decisions we make in life? does God forgive and forget? does forgive and remember later? does God truly give us a fresh start or does his discipline keep us in the same place for a time period until we learn? does God's kindness truly lead to repentance (Rom 2:4)? does godly sorrow leave no regret (II Cor 7:10)? do we doubt the blood of Jesus if feel like we are not forgiven? are we in Christ if we continue to sin over and over?
these are questions i have heard from friends over the past 10 years... good questions... do u have the same ones?
no matter what, i agree with one of my professors when she states that theology is not merely an intellectual exercise. we cannot separate the intellect from the soul as we inquire after God.
coming in, my basic definition is that a person's theology is the way a person views God and all the different relational aspects of that God to that person, others and the world. most of my life, i shunned theology because i viewed it as an intellectual exercise for people that had way too much free time. in recent years, however, i have seen how a person's theology truly impacts his/her everyday life.
what does a person believe about God and his response to the wrong decisions we make in life? does God forgive and forget? does forgive and remember later? does God truly give us a fresh start or does his discipline keep us in the same place for a time period until we learn? does God's kindness truly lead to repentance (Rom 2:4)? does godly sorrow leave no regret (II Cor 7:10)? do we doubt the blood of Jesus if feel like we are not forgiven? are we in Christ if we continue to sin over and over?
these are questions i have heard from friends over the past 10 years... good questions... do u have the same ones?
no matter what, i agree with one of my professors when she states that theology is not merely an intellectual exercise. we cannot separate the intellect from the soul as we inquire after God.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
thoughts...
i am going to record my thoughts at random times throughout my time at princeton seminary. i do not foresee me taking time to write these to individual friends all the time so this will be a common place to come see what is challenging my little brain. i hope that this will be a place where friends, family and others will check out and then we can have side conversations.
more to come as we go...
more to come as we go...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)