Growing up Baptist means, among other things, that the spirituality I learned contained very little art, poetry, symbolism, beauty, metaphor, or imagery. Spirituality (and Christianity really) was concrete, logical, clear, disciplined, and systematic. This brand of faith is common among evangelicals.
However, in there very little resonance for this kind of Christianity in the history of the church. Even in the scholastic period when theology and biblical studies were at their driest and most obtuse, imagery and metaphor played a major role in the church.
Not only this, but scripture is replete with this sort of thing. Jewish spirituality was almost entirely done in image, metaphor, and symbolic reenactment. Poetry and beauty mark not only the poetic books of the Bible, but find their way onto virtually every page. Imagery and metaphor were the standard tools of not only the prophets, but of Christ himself. Even Paul, the great theologian and logician, provides us with rich imagery and metaphor.
This weekend I attended a conference that developed the image of shepherding, Christ our Good Shepherd, we as under-shepherds ourselves, and we who help develop a future generation of shepherds. This is one of my favorite scriptural word pictures. The richness of it is astounding. Imagery and metaphor can capture our hearts and minds like little else.
How have you experienced (or not experienced) art, imagery, metaphor, symbolic reenactment, and other non-logic-based things in your spirituality? What are your favorite metaphors and images from scripture?
3.22.2010
3.15.2010
You Look Very Christian Today
That would be an odd comment to receive. How would you take that? Compliment or Insult?
I guess the real question is 'Are there Christian and/or un-Christian ways of looking?' Most would probably say 'no' but act as if the answer were 'yes.' As a society, we identify people and categorize them based on the way they look. Everything including their clothes, hair, demeanor, skin (tattoos and piercings), and facial hair help us determine what sort of person we are confronting.
Very few today overtly say, 'A Christian ought to look this or that certain way.' A few will use scripture to argue against tattoos, cross-dressing (women wearing pants in particular), women wearing make-up and jewelry, and hair length (long for men, short for women). Frankly, each argument is pretty flimsy. On a more covert level, however, many believers act as if a Christian ought to be clean, kept, neat, and have no tattoos or piercings (unless they got them before Jesus, Lord forgive them).
So what about it? Are there Christian appearance standards?
Issues to think about: Balancing cultural expectations with Christian freedom, The standard of modesty, matters specific to our culture vs. universal matters.
I guess the real question is 'Are there Christian and/or un-Christian ways of looking?' Most would probably say 'no' but act as if the answer were 'yes.' As a society, we identify people and categorize them based on the way they look. Everything including their clothes, hair, demeanor, skin (tattoos and piercings), and facial hair help us determine what sort of person we are confronting.
Very few today overtly say, 'A Christian ought to look this or that certain way.' A few will use scripture to argue against tattoos, cross-dressing (women wearing pants in particular), women wearing make-up and jewelry, and hair length (long for men, short for women). Frankly, each argument is pretty flimsy. On a more covert level, however, many believers act as if a Christian ought to be clean, kept, neat, and have no tattoos or piercings (unless they got them before Jesus, Lord forgive them).
So what about it? Are there Christian appearance standards?
Issues to think about: Balancing cultural expectations with Christian freedom, The standard of modesty, matters specific to our culture vs. universal matters.
3.07.2010
Of Killer Whales and Goring Oxen
Avoiding a Repeat of the Worst Mistake in Christian History
Here is a link to a story that illustrates for me that some Christians have still not learned one of the biggest lessons of Church history. For those who don't want to read the article, a theologian is suggesting that Tilly the killer whale should die based on the laws of the goring ox found in Exodus 21. This story about someone trying to apply scripture may seem innocuous at worst, and to some even laudable. To me it betrays both a deep ignorance of scripture and a failure to understand our past blunders.
The Scriptural Problem
This person's 'literal' reading of scripture fails to understand one of the most important features of the law. The law was given to a theocratic state where religion and government were essentially the same. Today we would call this the union of church and state. Unless Sea World, or the US is under theocratic rule, this argument holds no water.
The Failure to Understand Church History
Someone might argue that the union of church and state would be a good thing. I would respond that we already tried that in medieval Europe. The union of church and state was one of the the biggest mistakes in the history of the church. It was the root that gave birth to the two worst happenings in the history of the church: 1) the crusades, and 2) the exportation of culture and imperialism under the guise of missions. Both of these happenings were the fully grown fruit of the union of church and state. In both cases, Christians packaged the gospel with their own culture and government.The separation of church and state is a good thing for both the church and the state.
What do you think? Do you think this theologian has a point? Or do you think he is totally off base?
Here is a link to a story that illustrates for me that some Christians have still not learned one of the biggest lessons of Church history. For those who don't want to read the article, a theologian is suggesting that Tilly the killer whale should die based on the laws of the goring ox found in Exodus 21. This story about someone trying to apply scripture may seem innocuous at worst, and to some even laudable. To me it betrays both a deep ignorance of scripture and a failure to understand our past blunders.
The Scriptural Problem
This person's 'literal' reading of scripture fails to understand one of the most important features of the law. The law was given to a theocratic state where religion and government were essentially the same. Today we would call this the union of church and state. Unless Sea World, or the US is under theocratic rule, this argument holds no water.
The Failure to Understand Church History
Someone might argue that the union of church and state would be a good thing. I would respond that we already tried that in medieval Europe. The union of church and state was one of the the biggest mistakes in the history of the church. It was the root that gave birth to the two worst happenings in the history of the church: 1) the crusades, and 2) the exportation of culture and imperialism under the guise of missions. Both of these happenings were the fully grown fruit of the union of church and state. In both cases, Christians packaged the gospel with their own culture and government.The separation of church and state is a good thing for both the church and the state.
What do you think? Do you think this theologian has a point? Or do you think he is totally off base?
3.01.2010
He Said What?!
In my younger years, I had Sunday School teachers who not only taught against cussing, but even taught against using our Christian cussing alternatives. Anyone who grew up in Church knows the Christian cuss words: freakin', frappin', darn, crap, heck, shoot, dad-gum-it (huh?!), and a whole host of other creative terms. These were our acceptable alternatives where a cruder person would insert a cuss word.
In my later years, where I have had a broader exposure to varied types of Christians, I have encountered both those agree with the teaching of my youth, and those who freely insert cuss words where they are appropriate. Experiences in seminary brought this into stark contrast. On the stricter side, I had a fellow student tell me that one of the first things he tried to achieve in discipleship was cleaning up someone's language. This, he said, was one of the easiest and most tangible ways that a person can experience the transformative power of Christ. On the free side of things, I had a professor who, over the course of a semester used the word $#!t no less than 10 times. The first couple of times there was an audible gasp in the room.
Some issues that I think are pertinent here are balancing Christian freedom with Christian witness, the standard of Ephesians 4.29 (does this verse ban cussing as many claim?), and balancing our culture's expectations of Christians (non-drinking, non-cussing, family-values-oriented conservatives) with Christ's expectations of Christians.
So what do you think? Is it wrong for Christians to use words considered crude by our culture, or is it OK to use them when appropriate?
In my later years, where I have had a broader exposure to varied types of Christians, I have encountered both those agree with the teaching of my youth, and those who freely insert cuss words where they are appropriate. Experiences in seminary brought this into stark contrast. On the stricter side, I had a fellow student tell me that one of the first things he tried to achieve in discipleship was cleaning up someone's language. This, he said, was one of the easiest and most tangible ways that a person can experience the transformative power of Christ. On the free side of things, I had a professor who, over the course of a semester used the word $#!t no less than 10 times. The first couple of times there was an audible gasp in the room.
Some issues that I think are pertinent here are balancing Christian freedom with Christian witness, the standard of Ephesians 4.29 (does this verse ban cussing as many claim?), and balancing our culture's expectations of Christians (non-drinking, non-cussing, family-values-oriented conservatives) with Christ's expectations of Christians.
So what do you think? Is it wrong for Christians to use words considered crude by our culture, or is it OK to use them when appropriate?
2.24.2010
The 10 Reasons Christ is Coming Back in 2010
That list would be a lot easier to assemble than the 88 reason list assembled by Edgar Whisenant about why Christ would return on Rosh Hashanna 1988. End times obsession has been a major feature of fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity for the last couple of centuries. It has given us such delights as Hal Lindsay's Late Great Planet Earth, the atrocious Omega Code, and the ever popular Left Behind series.
End times obsession was a key note of my upbringing. I remember 1988. I remember my pastor giving us the highlights of the 88 reasons and my mother copying them down on a scrap of paper from her purse. The first book of the Bible I ever read on my own was the Revelation. I had one of those small Gideon New Testaments that I would sit and read. When I was a teenager we spent the better part of a year going through Revelation as a youth group. That was good times.
End times obsession was a key note of my upbringing. I remember 1988. I remember my pastor giving us the highlights of the 88 reasons and my mother copying them down on a scrap of paper from her purse. The first book of the Bible I ever read on my own was the Revelation. I had one of those small Gideon New Testaments that I would sit and read. When I was a teenager we spent the better part of a year going through Revelation as a youth group. That was good times.
All of this end times focus had a very odd effect on me. I found that I regarded the return of my Lord with some mixture of fear and morbid curiosity. The book of Revelation was like a horror movie that I did not want to watch but could not look away from. As I have grown, I have learned that I am not alone in this response.
Should this be the case? Shouldn't the our response to the return of Christ be some mixture of joy and hope rather than fear and morbid curiosity?
What do you think? What is your experience with end time obsession? How do you think we should engage matters of the end times?
2.06.2010
The Secret Key That No One Has Ever Told You...Now Revealed!
This is a portion of a talk I will be giving to some Moody Bible Institute students this week.
I want to address the question for you all, ‘What does it take to sustain a life of mission?’Now I don’t mean what does it take to have success in ministry, or what does it take to see fruit in mission. No, I mean what does it take for me, for you to fulfill the calling to a life of mission. What does it take to sustain a life dedicated to mission over long days and weeks, and months, and years.
In seminary, we were required to attend 3-4 chapels per week. And different people would come and tell us all about the things we needed to know when we got out into the real world. All the secret “keys” they don’t teach you school. By the time I graduated, I had a key chain full, and I’m not talking about normal key chain, I mean one of those janitorial staff key chains that looks like an impossible knot of like 400 keys. Keys to being a good minister.
But I have found that there really is no “key.” There is not some special practice that no one has ever told you about, it’s not some magical ratio of the time spent in prayer to the number of hours spent with people that will sustain you. The only “key” is the most ancient, most widely practiced, most fundamental, simplest, clearest, and well-known thing you can imagine.
I have found that sustaining a life of mission takes an unyielding commitment to the centrality of the person of Jesus Christ. That’s right folks, the answer is Jesus. Now don’t confuse what I am saying here. We are not talking about the doctrine of Christ, although that is extremely important. And we are not talking about the text of the Gospels, although they are some of the most important documents in the history of our world. We are not even talking about the veracity of the historical Jesus, although the fact that the apostles give us reliable witness to the real Jesus is of crucial importance.
Now why do I say we must have an unyielding commitment? The problem that we face is our own tendency in ministry or mission of any kind, to confuse the means with the end.It should be clear from what I have said that the end I speak of is the very person of Jesus Christ himself. He is true end, or goal, or purpose, of everything we do in ministry and mission. What I am saying is that the means by which we reach this end are easily viewed as ends in themselves.
Probably the most insidious confusion of the means for the end happens with the Bible itself. Make no mistake about it, the Bible is a means, not an end. The Bible is the unique and inerrant witness to God’s actions. It is the specially appointed place where we can meet with the Lord, here his voice, experience his grace and love, and most importantly encounter our savior, Jesus Christ. The Bible is the primary means by which we come to know and commune with the very person of Jesus Christ.
But in my life, the Bible became an end in itself. When I went to seminary, I wanted to master the text of scripture. I don’t mean just to know a lot about it, I mean I wanted to be an exegete. Through my mastery of Greek and Hebrew, I wanted to become deeply acquainted with every detail of the text. Through my research, I wanted to become well versed in culture and literature of the Biblical world. Through my reading, I wanted to become aware of every possible perspective, interpretation, idea, or argument related to the text. I wanted to master the text. For me, knowing Jesus fundamentally meant knowing the text. It was a complete confusion of the means with the end.
Making the Bible an end in itself will leave you very knowledgeable about the text, but completely cut off from its living Author. But if we will see the Bible as a means rather than an end, if instead of seeking to master the text, we come seeking to submit to Christ, the Lord himself will meet us there. I will tell you that in sustaining a life of mission, there is no substitute for encountering Jesus Christ himself through the Bible.
The statement that the Bible is a means rather than an end may be striking to some. What do you think about that (or about anything else I said that struck you)?
1.26.2010
Preach It Brother
In my years of church going, I have heard some very good sermons, and some very bad sermons. I once heard a sermon on the story of Jacob's early life where the preacher argued that the Bible clearly teaches that boys should spend more time with their mothers than their fathers, and that it was OK for a boy to know how to cook! On my list of strange and inane things that I have heard from the pulpit, that may take top honors.
I get the opportunity to preach fairly regularly. In addition, I oversee our church's teaching ministry. I have the privilege of helping others become better teachers. This role has caused me to reflect on preaching quite a bit.
It seems to me that most preachers tend toward one of four styles:
1) Commentary Giver - this preacher gives the exegesis of every detail in the text. To him/her success is a thorough explanation of the text itself.
2) Story Teller - this preacher tends to string together stories that make a similar point to the preaching text. To him/her success is getting people to connect the text with their lives.
3) Comedian - this preacher tends to make humorous stories and jokes the staple of his/her preaching. To him/her success is keeping people entertained long enough to tell them about the Bible.
4) Emotional Plea Guy - this preacher tends to make things persuasive and heart wrenching. To him/her success is when people are responding to the sermon with weeping or dancing, grieving or rejoicing; really just any response of strong emotion.
Now, these are certainly four extremes. We all do a mixture of these things, but most preachers will tend toward one of them. I tend toward being a commentary giver. In my view the goal of teaching/preaching is to help people understand the Bible and its implications well enough that they can follow Jesus in love.
What about you? When you go to church, what are you hoping to hear?
I get the opportunity to preach fairly regularly. In addition, I oversee our church's teaching ministry. I have the privilege of helping others become better teachers. This role has caused me to reflect on preaching quite a bit.
It seems to me that most preachers tend toward one of four styles:
1) Commentary Giver - this preacher gives the exegesis of every detail in the text. To him/her success is a thorough explanation of the text itself.
2) Story Teller - this preacher tends to string together stories that make a similar point to the preaching text. To him/her success is getting people to connect the text with their lives.
3) Comedian - this preacher tends to make humorous stories and jokes the staple of his/her preaching. To him/her success is keeping people entertained long enough to tell them about the Bible.
4) Emotional Plea Guy - this preacher tends to make things persuasive and heart wrenching. To him/her success is when people are responding to the sermon with weeping or dancing, grieving or rejoicing; really just any response of strong emotion.
Now, these are certainly four extremes. We all do a mixture of these things, but most preachers will tend toward one of them. I tend toward being a commentary giver. In my view the goal of teaching/preaching is to help people understand the Bible and its implications well enough that they can follow Jesus in love.
What about you? When you go to church, what are you hoping to hear?
1.11.2010
Jesus I Like, You I Do Not
In A.D. 251 St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote, "He can no longer have God as his Father who does not have the church as his mother." You can't have Jesus without the church we might say. They are a package deal.
Yet it is not uncommon to hear people (especially people under the age of 30) say things like, 'I follow Jesus, but I don't think I necessarily need the church,' or 'I experience God more in nature than I do in the church.' Many such individuals have had negative experiences in the church that have left them wonder if they can have a Christianity with just the good parts. No intentional intimate community, no input from a pastor, no cheese-ball worship leaders, no committees, no buildings, no tradition, no creeds, no authority...just give me Jesus.
So here the question: Do we get to have Jesus without the church?
Yet it is not uncommon to hear people (especially people under the age of 30) say things like, 'I follow Jesus, but I don't think I necessarily need the church,' or 'I experience God more in nature than I do in the church.' Many such individuals have had negative experiences in the church that have left them wonder if they can have a Christianity with just the good parts. No intentional intimate community, no input from a pastor, no cheese-ball worship leaders, no committees, no buildings, no tradition, no creeds, no authority...just give me Jesus.
So here the question: Do we get to have Jesus without the church?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
