I found the book Finding an unseen God by Alicia Britt Chole to be an interesting and easy read even if a little too simple in its message for my taste. Despite the "postmodern" style and feel of the book, it was really quite traditional in its message of believing in a God.
She uses an unusual structuring to get you interested as she weaves an interesting story with a few connectible characters, such as her father. The book starts with chapter 52 followed by chapter 1 then 51 and so on back and forth. The format was both intriguing and confusing for me. There were several chapter that I had to reread in order to understand what story she was talking about.
I did however; enjoy reading her patterns of thought and the ways she clearly shows she is now able to think about her belief and intellectually accept it. For me this was the most beneficial section of the book.
The book was a nice short read, that kept my attention enough to read it in two sittings. As a whole I don't think I will be recommending the book strongly, however it was enjoyable and includes some good and interesting ideas.
breNt
Friday, July 24, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
"Emergence"
By now, most people involved with the church have heard the term emergent and know at least partially what it is. Some people are tired of hearing terms like postmodern, emergent, emerging and so on. Other people are super excited for these terms and still feel they are new and revolutionary. Then there are the people that have at some point felt the revolutionary feeling, but have realized that there is a kind of bitterness or sarcasm that goes along with these terms. This last group of people feels as if, when terms like these are brought up, everyone rolls their eyes and turns them off. There are all kinds of feelings towards these terms and the ways of thinking that go along with them.
I personally have found myself deeply connecting with the emergent movement in a lot of ways. However, lately, I have found myself shifting towards the group that feels the bitterness. When I want to talk to people about these ideas now, I usually try to avoid using the terms postmodern or emergent and instead focus on talking about ways of thinking or doing theology. I do this mainly because, I feel that as soon as these terms are spoken there is often a disconnect that takes place. The reasons for this may vary, but I believe that one of the major reasons for this disconnect is that what these terms stand for is greatly misunderstood. Or, maybe, that their meanings are so vague and ambiguous that everyone’s interpretation of them is different. I don’t know, but I do know that my interpretation of the idea’s behind these terms have brought me to an understanding of, and a vision for a church and faith that I can believe in.
I also have seen the ideas that go along with terms such as emergent and postmodern are bigger than just me. I can tell that there are so many people out there that have been positively affected by emergent thought, that it carries with it some truth. I have seen that the changes these ways of thinking have brought are everywhere, under all sorts of names; and they are continuing to move. Despite whatever may happen to the terms that define them.
So as I read about people who are despondent to the fact that emergent is “dying” or something like that I have to laugh. Yes, “emergent” may be dying, as in the term is dying, but the idea that emergent is, (or was) is moving and becoming. People despair that emergent hasn’t made the changes that it has been preaching. They feel emergent heralded a new (or old) way being a Christian that means more than just getting into heaven, that it means following Christ in the here and now as apposed to looking at the future, they despair that it heralded this and hasn’t made these changes. But, it has, and is, making these changes. I look around me, and the world is changing. As I’m sure it always has, but it has changed and it is changing, and I believe this way of thinking is deeply impacting the change that is taking place. People are making changes in their ways of doing life in very real ways. The conversation as it has been called is not the only aspect of the emergent movement. There is a genuine attempt all around to make actual changes in real life ways of doing things. I see it in new ways of doing church, in churches that are attempting to be relational and community oriented. I see it in the ways people are attempting to live there lives. From the simple things like recycling and reusing, or trying to live more “green.” These things are coming to fruition all around us. Yes they are small changes that are happening a little bit at a time, but they are the changes we are talking about.
We talk a lot about a shift from modernity to post-modernity. A lot of people have observed that our way of viewing/seeing the world as a society seems to undergo a large shift every 500 years or so. And a lot of people believe we are on the cusp of another one of those shifts. If you want to believe that we are, we have to be patient. We must realize that these changes will take time. Living in a modern world, we expect things to happen fast and to see the difference immediately. However, in the past it has taken several hundred years for these changes to come about, and it may still take that long. This is not going to change quickly at all. This is not going to change fast just because we can now move information faster than before. What has to change is each and every person’s way of thinking of and looking at the world and religion, and this will always be a very slow process. So, whether or not we are undergoing one of these shifts, I encourage us to keep moving, pushing, talking, and learning as we move slowly forward.
breNt
I personally have found myself deeply connecting with the emergent movement in a lot of ways. However, lately, I have found myself shifting towards the group that feels the bitterness. When I want to talk to people about these ideas now, I usually try to avoid using the terms postmodern or emergent and instead focus on talking about ways of thinking or doing theology. I do this mainly because, I feel that as soon as these terms are spoken there is often a disconnect that takes place. The reasons for this may vary, but I believe that one of the major reasons for this disconnect is that what these terms stand for is greatly misunderstood. Or, maybe, that their meanings are so vague and ambiguous that everyone’s interpretation of them is different. I don’t know, but I do know that my interpretation of the idea’s behind these terms have brought me to an understanding of, and a vision for a church and faith that I can believe in.
I also have seen the ideas that go along with terms such as emergent and postmodern are bigger than just me. I can tell that there are so many people out there that have been positively affected by emergent thought, that it carries with it some truth. I have seen that the changes these ways of thinking have brought are everywhere, under all sorts of names; and they are continuing to move. Despite whatever may happen to the terms that define them.
So as I read about people who are despondent to the fact that emergent is “dying” or something like that I have to laugh. Yes, “emergent” may be dying, as in the term is dying, but the idea that emergent is, (or was) is moving and becoming. People despair that emergent hasn’t made the changes that it has been preaching. They feel emergent heralded a new (or old) way being a Christian that means more than just getting into heaven, that it means following Christ in the here and now as apposed to looking at the future, they despair that it heralded this and hasn’t made these changes. But, it has, and is, making these changes. I look around me, and the world is changing. As I’m sure it always has, but it has changed and it is changing, and I believe this way of thinking is deeply impacting the change that is taking place. People are making changes in their ways of doing life in very real ways. The conversation as it has been called is not the only aspect of the emergent movement. There is a genuine attempt all around to make actual changes in real life ways of doing things. I see it in new ways of doing church, in churches that are attempting to be relational and community oriented. I see it in the ways people are attempting to live there lives. From the simple things like recycling and reusing, or trying to live more “green.” These things are coming to fruition all around us. Yes they are small changes that are happening a little bit at a time, but they are the changes we are talking about.
We talk a lot about a shift from modernity to post-modernity. A lot of people have observed that our way of viewing/seeing the world as a society seems to undergo a large shift every 500 years or so. And a lot of people believe we are on the cusp of another one of those shifts. If you want to believe that we are, we have to be patient. We must realize that these changes will take time. Living in a modern world, we expect things to happen fast and to see the difference immediately. However, in the past it has taken several hundred years for these changes to come about, and it may still take that long. This is not going to change quickly at all. This is not going to change fast just because we can now move information faster than before. What has to change is each and every person’s way of thinking of and looking at the world and religion, and this will always be a very slow process. So, whether or not we are undergoing one of these shifts, I encourage us to keep moving, pushing, talking, and learning as we move slowly forward.
breNt
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Atonement
I feel a little childish asking this question. As if I should already know the answer, seeing as how I've been in Church my whole life and attended bible school for 3 years now. But still I don't fully understand.
Why did Jesus have to die for our sins? I have read countless theology books and commentary's and I still do not understand this. I guess the main point is the "why." Was it necessary for grace to work? Was it just to make a point? I just don't get it.
After all of Jesus' preaching against the Law, it seems that, In this way of thinking, he goes and dies so that he can follow the law that something has to pay for it all. If it is true grace, wouldn't it just be free? Wouldn't Jesus not have had to die so that the sins were paid for? That seems to me just to be a continuation of the Law. I feel that there is more here to expound upon, but I need more time to think.
Again, I write these things cause I like to hear what other people think about them. So, please, let me know.
Peace,
breNt
Why did Jesus have to die for our sins? I have read countless theology books and commentary's and I still do not understand this. I guess the main point is the "why." Was it necessary for grace to work? Was it just to make a point? I just don't get it.
After all of Jesus' preaching against the Law, it seems that, In this way of thinking, he goes and dies so that he can follow the law that something has to pay for it all. If it is true grace, wouldn't it just be free? Wouldn't Jesus not have had to die so that the sins were paid for? That seems to me just to be a continuation of the Law. I feel that there is more here to expound upon, but I need more time to think.
Again, I write these things cause I like to hear what other people think about them. So, please, let me know.
Peace,
breNt
Friday, June 19, 2009
Capitalism, good or bad?
Recently I have read Ayn Rand’s books The Fountainhead, Anthem, and Atlas Shrugged. All of Ayn Rand’s work push for a pure capitalism and seek to show what happens when we try to take away free trade and “dog eat dog” business. However, the movement in society of emergence that is taking place (and has become a large part of my thinking) has been connected (probably rightly) with a feeling of anti-capitalism. These two sides have been clashing in my mind for a while now.
On one side, I have a great respect for capitalism in that it encourages new and brilliant ideas. That is, it pushes for the next and newest thing. Ayn Rand shows, to an extreme, what it could look like if capitalism is overthrown. She shows a society where new and better products are shunned and old slower ways are kept even with the invention of new ones in order not to “hurt” the producer of the old. This in turn eventually leads to companies falling apart and the downfall of civilization as a whole. Like I said, her example is an extreme, but in some sense she has a point. A competitive requires people to keep up and continue to be innovative, this leads to incredibly amazing new ways of doing things.
On the other side, capitalism can (has?) lead to an incredibly selfish society marginalizes people and ends up (as we are finding out) destroying the environment. Capitalism has a respect for nothing accept the newest/fastest/best idea and the dollar. Because of this it shows no care or remorse for the damage it causes to the poor, the sick, the forests, or anything else for that matter, it simply does what is necessary to make the most money the fastest. This aspect of capitalism I think is damaging.
As always, I find myself pulling away from these extremes and looking for a middle ground. I wonder what that middle ground could look like. What a culture that encouraged innovative and creative endeavor without the unhealthy pursuit of money that it seems to come with.
What do you think?
breNt
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Remergence
I read this blog from Jeremy Johnson on the Emergent Village websight was insightful and thought provoking so I decided to post it here to let more people read it. Enjoy and let me know what you think.
breNt
The Remerging Church by Jeremy Johnson
breNt
The Remerging Church by Jeremy Johnson
There is a lot of talk about the emerging church; what it is, what it is becoming, what it isn’t, who is and isn’t a part of it. After walking with all sorts of people who are engaged in this particular conversation, I am not sure that the word “emerging” captures what the Spirit is doing. I think a more appropriate word is forming, the word “remerging”. And for myself and many others, it was the recent gathering in Albuquerque (March 2009) where we got a deeper glimpse of how the Spirit is remerging the church-of-the-willing.
All the other splits and reformations in our short 2,000 year church history were about one thing: separation. “I don’t like what you are doing and so I am going to remove myself from relationship with you and go my own way…it was nice knowing you, now shove off.” This happened around the 6th century with the early monastics and the church. It happened again around the 11th century with the great schism of the eastern and western church. It happened again around the 16th century with Catholics and Protestants. And over the past 500 years within Protestantism, this separation pattern has repeated itself thousands of times in all of our denominational schisms.
But what is happing today in the 21st century is different. Where as division defined the others (in part), this one will be defined by a remerging of the “willing” who are found in the camps created by the previous schisms.
A remerging of the willing. This is how I believe history will define this time.
A remerging of those who don’t want to put aside their differences for unity’s sake, but want unity to be found in recognizing and embracing the beauty in all of our differences. (Paul’s description of the Body comes to mind for me here).
A remerging of those who realize they don’t need to seek permission from the “top” to unite and walk together in love, but now see that Jesus already gave them permission to unite and then prayed that they would.
A remerging of those who choose reconciliation, healing, and forgiveness over entrenchment, division, fear, and anger.
A remerging of those who choose to toss aside the rules and theologies that divide, and choose to embrace the healing freedom that really does exist in Christ.
A remerging of those who choose to let go of their “inerrant” interpretations and dogmas for the sake of learning from and alongside the “other”.
A remerging of those who are willing to be killed on the cross of unity, rather than slowly die in the quicksand of division.
A remerging of those who choose to sit at the table and break bread together, and then welcome all others who will come.
A remerging of those who hunger and thirst for God’s kingdom, not our individual kingdoms.
A remerging of the broken.
A remerging of the weak.
A remerging of the willing.
So what began emerging out of the dirt of the earth, is now remerging the body of Christ after 2,000 years of self-mutilation and hacking each other apart.
Will everyone remerge as one? Sadly, as history has shown, no—only the willing will. For some, this remerging is a terribly frightening and evil occurrence. For others, it is the very lifeblood of God’s heart and they long for it with every fiber of their being.
Regardless, may we become the remerged body of Christ—both for our own sake and for a world who is dying to see Jesus in the flesh once more.
Shalom,
Jeromy
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
A new focus
This is something that I wrote for my New Testament Theology class.
Something that has been on my mind lately is the way in which we as Christians have been structuring our theologies of the New Testament. More pointedly, how we have put the focus of our theologies on the epistles rather than the gospels and the parables of Jesus. I think that this way of doing theology is deeply flawed for several reasons. First the epistles are letters that were written to specific people in a specific time and therefore may or may not be culturally relevant to us in all aspects of what they teach. Also, the epistles were written through the lens of the teachings of Jesus, therefore we should also be interpreting them through that lens. Most importantly though, the epistles have lead us to have a tendency of creating a very formulaic way of following Jesus, that I have come to believe is contradictory to the point that Jesus was making in his life.
The problem with the parables in today's church has been that they don't easily fit into a rule based system that can be followed without much effort. Because of our trouble with the paradox of the teachings of jesus we have tended to dumb down the parables to the point in which they become children's Sunday school stories, no more. We have tried as hard as we can to make the parables little moral lessons on how to be a better Christian. There are a few problems with this as well. One problem is that not all of the parables make sense if interpreted as moral stories. Secondly, in response to problem one we have had to twist them to make them fit into what we want them to be. And lastly, as they are the focus of Jesus' ministry, interpreting the parables this way falls dismally short of the beauty and glory of what Jesus' life revealed to us.
I have come to truly believe that the center of our theologies needs to be based on the parables. The parables are addressing issues much deeper than the epistles, focusing mainly on the character of God, his kingdom, and our ingrained ideas of faith. While the epistles take the trutchs presented here and expound on them. But in order for us to understand them we must come to them through the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was deconstructing the framework that the religious people of his day had set up, and I think that the parables can and should do the same for us.
So, with this in mind we are going to take a look at the parable of the Good Samaritan.
On one occasion and expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit internal life?" "what is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: "' Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your sould and with all your strength and with all your mind' and, 'love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "and who is my neighbor?" In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ' look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.' "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robers?" The expert in the law replied, " the one who had mercy on him." Jesu stold him, "Go and do like-wise."
What is the traditional interpretation for this parable? The traditional interpretation is that we need to help those in need. That is the end of the story. In this way of interpretting the Christ figure is the Samaritan.
The main difference in the way I want to interpret this parable is to move the Christ figure from the Samaritan to the man who got beat up. By doing this we will see what I believe was Jesus' point in telling this parable.
First off two religious people walk by Christ on the side of the road. They walk by missing the point. These two embody what was the widely accepted view of being "saved" in that day. They were followers of the Lord. These two are us. We are the people who think we have it right. The people who are following the law and anyone who does not believe as we do are wrong and on the outside. We think of ourselves as winners who have foudn the right answer.
Next comes our hero the good Samaritan. But the good Samaritan is not what we normally think of as a hero. He is a half breed heretic who has all kinds of weird theologies. But the point is that he does not judge the man or think himself better than the naked man on the street. He is willing to realize that he is no better than that man and give of himself.
At the end of the parable Jesus tells the expert in the law who asked the question to, "go and do the same." When he says this he is not instructing us to go be nice people. Instead, he is telling us to go and realize that we are no better than that man laying on the street. That we need to die to our score keeping way of doing life. Jesus is not talking about physical changes that need to be made. Rather, he is talking about a change of heart that needs to happen. We need to die to our score keeping and self measuring to realiz that the down and out are the embodiment of what Jesus calls us to. The people who have hit bottom are the people who have truly learned what it means to stop keeping track of where we stand morally. They no longer have any reason to try and measure themselves to other people because they know that they are last. This is what is meant when Paul says in Romans 6:7 "anyone who dies has been freed from sin." We need to die to our human condition of keeping track of where we stand.
Also, Jesus is saying all of this in response to the question "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" If we take this parable as it is presented in the traditional interpretation we must come to the conclusion that in order to inherit eternal life we must be good people. But if instead we realize that Christ is the near-dead man on the side of the street and, like the Samaritan accept the fact that we are the same, that we are dead, will we be able to accept the ideas of Christ into ourselves. If we can not accept this we will walk away looking for a more respectable Jesus which will not be found. So, in order to inherit eternal life we must humble ourselves to the point in which we die to our old ways of thinking and accept the deep mystery of the unfathomable grace of God.
breNt
Something that has been on my mind lately is the way in which we as Christians have been structuring our theologies of the New Testament. More pointedly, how we have put the focus of our theologies on the epistles rather than the gospels and the parables of Jesus. I think that this way of doing theology is deeply flawed for several reasons. First the epistles are letters that were written to specific people in a specific time and therefore may or may not be culturally relevant to us in all aspects of what they teach. Also, the epistles were written through the lens of the teachings of Jesus, therefore we should also be interpreting them through that lens. Most importantly though, the epistles have lead us to have a tendency of creating a very formulaic way of following Jesus, that I have come to believe is contradictory to the point that Jesus was making in his life.
The problem with the parables in today's church has been that they don't easily fit into a rule based system that can be followed without much effort. Because of our trouble with the paradox of the teachings of jesus we have tended to dumb down the parables to the point in which they become children's Sunday school stories, no more. We have tried as hard as we can to make the parables little moral lessons on how to be a better Christian. There are a few problems with this as well. One problem is that not all of the parables make sense if interpreted as moral stories. Secondly, in response to problem one we have had to twist them to make them fit into what we want them to be. And lastly, as they are the focus of Jesus' ministry, interpreting the parables this way falls dismally short of the beauty and glory of what Jesus' life revealed to us.
I have come to truly believe that the center of our theologies needs to be based on the parables. The parables are addressing issues much deeper than the epistles, focusing mainly on the character of God, his kingdom, and our ingrained ideas of faith. While the epistles take the trutchs presented here and expound on them. But in order for us to understand them we must come to them through the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was deconstructing the framework that the religious people of his day had set up, and I think that the parables can and should do the same for us.
So, with this in mind we are going to take a look at the parable of the Good Samaritan.
On one occasion and expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit internal life?" "what is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: "' Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your sould and with all your strength and with all your mind' and, 'love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "and who is my neighbor?" In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ' look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.' "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robers?" The expert in the law replied, " the one who had mercy on him." Jesu stold him, "Go and do like-wise."
What is the traditional interpretation for this parable? The traditional interpretation is that we need to help those in need. That is the end of the story. In this way of interpretting the Christ figure is the Samaritan.
The main difference in the way I want to interpret this parable is to move the Christ figure from the Samaritan to the man who got beat up. By doing this we will see what I believe was Jesus' point in telling this parable.
First off two religious people walk by Christ on the side of the road. They walk by missing the point. These two embody what was the widely accepted view of being "saved" in that day. They were followers of the Lord. These two are us. We are the people who think we have it right. The people who are following the law and anyone who does not believe as we do are wrong and on the outside. We think of ourselves as winners who have foudn the right answer.
Next comes our hero the good Samaritan. But the good Samaritan is not what we normally think of as a hero. He is a half breed heretic who has all kinds of weird theologies. But the point is that he does not judge the man or think himself better than the naked man on the street. He is willing to realize that he is no better than that man and give of himself.
At the end of the parable Jesus tells the expert in the law who asked the question to, "go and do the same." When he says this he is not instructing us to go be nice people. Instead, he is telling us to go and realize that we are no better than that man laying on the street. That we need to die to our score keeping way of doing life. Jesus is not talking about physical changes that need to be made. Rather, he is talking about a change of heart that needs to happen. We need to die to our score keeping and self measuring to realiz that the down and out are the embodiment of what Jesus calls us to. The people who have hit bottom are the people who have truly learned what it means to stop keeping track of where we stand morally. They no longer have any reason to try and measure themselves to other people because they know that they are last. This is what is meant when Paul says in Romans 6:7 "anyone who dies has been freed from sin." We need to die to our human condition of keeping track of where we stand.
Also, Jesus is saying all of this in response to the question "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" If we take this parable as it is presented in the traditional interpretation we must come to the conclusion that in order to inherit eternal life we must be good people. But if instead we realize that Christ is the near-dead man on the side of the street and, like the Samaritan accept the fact that we are the same, that we are dead, will we be able to accept the ideas of Christ into ourselves. If we can not accept this we will walk away looking for a more respectable Jesus which will not be found. So, in order to inherit eternal life we must humble ourselves to the point in which we die to our old ways of thinking and accept the deep mystery of the unfathomable grace of God.
breNt
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Evangelism is relational
Evangelism is Conversation. Growing up I understood evangelism as something set apart and intentional. I was lead to believe that we needed to go out to "non-Christians" and try to change their way of thinking to be in tune with ours. To me, at that time, evangelism was getting everyone to agree with the way of thinking I had been taught was right. Jesus said go into all the world and make Disciples. This to me does not mean go out and make everyone think exactly like you do because you have the everything figured out. Rather, it means to go out and talk to people and show them a real and beautiful way to live, the way of Jesus. Out of these conversations and relationships will come, what I think, what Jesus was looking for. If we stopped wondering or worrying about getting people into our churches and instead focused on being real and caring for people in the world we would probably end up bring in more people anyways. Like Tim Keel said in his book Intuitive Leadership, "I believe the most acceptable and common form of idolatry in churches today is ministry." We focus more on ministry than we do on God. We pursue the outward sign of what should be an inner focus, and we forgo what really matters which is the relationship with God. In this we turn to very earthly and many times evil ways of getting the numbers and outward manifestations that we think we need. As heather Kirk-Davidoff says in her essay Meeting Jesus at the Bar, "It is a change in the reason we do evangelism, shifting the focus from recruitment to the cultivation of relationships that are an end in themselves, indespensible to our spiritual journeys." In order for us to really learn and grow we must be willing to confront and learn from differing perspectives than our own. We have to be able to see that God is at work in people's lives in all kinds of ways inside and outside of the church and when something looks different we should be curious not condemming. As we shift to a more relational focus for the sake of relationships our evangelism comes as a by product because, the message of Jesus really is good news.
breNt
breNt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)