Today in class we discussed the church after Constantine in preparation for our next class on the Reformation. In lieu of the discussion we watched a short video about the life of St. Patrick and his mission to the Irish. We started the class by reading the Lorica, the prayer of St. Patrick also known as the Breastplate of St. Patrick.
St. Patrick was the son of wealthy landowners who was taken as a slave by the invading Irish. After receiving his freedom God called him in a dream to come back to Ireland with the Gospel (cf. Paul and the Macedonians). After 12 years of study and preparation, Patrick went to Ireland (cf. Paul and his time in the wilderness as referred to in Galatians). Patrick would camp with tribe after tribe of Irishmen, witnessing to the power of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By the time of Patrick's death, all of Ireland was Christian.
It seems significant to me that Patrick spent 12 years preparing after receiving such a clear call from God to go to Ireland. It seems that the expectation nowadays is that obedience to a call should look like immediate action, whereas for St. Patrick, it took preparation, 12 years of it. Also, Patrick's method, of going tribe by tribe and implanting the Gospel and the church into the Irish culture was healthy and effective. It was the Irish Christians who saved Western civilization through their scholarship during the Dark Ages. Education was important. Finally, Patrick was known for confronting the evil powers of the Irish tribal religions. Power encounters were not uncommon.
In light of all of the conversion that occurred during the years following Constantine, the conversion of Ireland under St. Patrick stands out as a shining example of mission gone well.
Showing posts with label evangelism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evangelism. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Reflections on... The Pre-Constantinian Era (FTS_MC500)
Today we finished our discussion on the the era after the first century and before Constantine. Some of the changes during this era included the re-institutionalizing of religion after Jesus had deconstructed it during the first century. Whereas Jesus deconstructed the power structures and religious perspectives of Judaism, after the first century the church began to re-implement similar values of power in hierarchy and professionalism of a special clergy-class. Whereas Jesus said, "where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them," the pre-Constantinian church said, "where they are gathered around a rightly consecrated bishop rightly administering the the Eucharist, there is the church, the presence of Christ. Where there is no bishop, there is no church." The reasons for this may have been practical as well as theological: the church grew from roughly 10,000 in AD 100 to around 6,000,000 in AD 300. It took quite a bit more effort to care for a maintain the church at the end of the third century than it did at the end of the first.
One observation that Dr. Bolger made was that even though such growth over the second two centuries of the church seems massively exponentional, spaced out over the course of 200 years, it is more of a consistently steady growth over a long period of time. This brings home the reality that in the first few centuries, just as in the last few centuries, the backbone of church evangelism and growth has been through slow, steady conversion of friends and family members. Though there have been missionaries to new locations and mass revival type meetings, the long-lasting growth of the church has occurred as friends and family members are drawn into the church through exposure to life transformation and honest witness.
Finally, another interesting historical fact was a reference to a statement by one of the early church fathers, Tertullian, around AD 200. He made some comments to the effect that when people come to worship they should bring their own contributions, such as hymns. Over the course of the next few centuries, the church gathering went from being more active/participatory to more passive/receptive. It reminds me of something I've said before, that if you can still have the meeting with no one in attendance, then you're really not having a meeting, you're putting on a show. Shows have their place, but not in a family gathering.
One observation that Dr. Bolger made was that even though such growth over the second two centuries of the church seems massively exponentional, spaced out over the course of 200 years, it is more of a consistently steady growth over a long period of time. This brings home the reality that in the first few centuries, just as in the last few centuries, the backbone of church evangelism and growth has been through slow, steady conversion of friends and family members. Though there have been missionaries to new locations and mass revival type meetings, the long-lasting growth of the church has occurred as friends and family members are drawn into the church through exposure to life transformation and honest witness.
Finally, another interesting historical fact was a reference to a statement by one of the early church fathers, Tertullian, around AD 200. He made some comments to the effect that when people come to worship they should bring their own contributions, such as hymns. Over the course of the next few centuries, the church gathering went from being more active/participatory to more passive/receptive. It reminds me of something I've said before, that if you can still have the meeting with no one in attendance, then you're really not having a meeting, you're putting on a show. Shows have their place, but not in a family gathering.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Spurgeon on evangelism
One man in Paul's dream, who said, " Come over and help us!" was enough to constrain him; and here are millions not in a dream, but in open vision, who all at once say, "Come and help us." Did we say, just now, we could not ? Surely we must recall our words and say, "We must." Good Master, we must! If we cannot, we must. We feel our weakness, but there is an impulse within us that says we must do it, and we cannot stop, we dare not — we were accursed if we did. The blasts of hell and the wrath of heaven would fall upon us if we renounced the task.
The world's only hope— shall we put that out? The lone star that gilds the darkness, — shall we quench that? The Saviours of men, and shall we fold our arms and let them die? No! By the love we bear [in] thy name; by the bonds that unite us to thee; by everything that is holy before God and humane in the sight of our fellow mortals; by everything that is tender and gentle in the throbbing of our hearts and the yearning of our bowels, we say we must, though we feel we cannot.- Charles Spurgeon, from a sermon on Jesus' feeding of the 5,000
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Christian spirituality
In the context of speaking about 21st century spiritual trends in the Church that have dislocated spirituality from that of the ancient church, Webber notes how the experiential spirituality of pietism and revivalism have turned into narcissism. He says,
And "spiritual theology," says Eugene Peterson, "is the attention we give to lived theology - prayed and lived, for if it is not prayed, sooner or later it will not be lived from the inside out and in continuity with the Lord of life."
According to Webber, the problem with much contemporary spirituality, Christian or otherwise, is that it is focused on and preoccupied with the self. In Christianity this is manifest in spiritualities of legalism, intellectualism, and experientialism. True spirituality is not only centered on God revealed in Christ, but proceeds from God's story of creation, incarnation-Christ's birth, life, death, and resurrection, and re-creation through the Spirit.
These differing perspectives will manifest themselves in how we interact over issues from worship styles and environmentalism, to ethical discrepancies, doctrinal disagreements, and relational conflict of all kinds. In short, what is at stake is the Gospel, which is the "power of God for salvation to all who believe, the Jew first and to the Greek."
Evangelism's focus on God's story taking experiential root in our lives is in itself not narcissistic. It only becomes narcissistic when one becomes fascinated with his or her own journey and gives priority to self-reflection. Our contemplative wonder and awe is not to focus on the spiritual journey of the self but on the journey of God who creates and became incarnate in his own creation to re-create. And our participation in the spiritual life is not a continuous search for a transcendent experience but the transfiguration of this life through a life lived in the continual pattern of baptism - dying to sin and rising to the life of the Spirit."The Christian way of knowing [the truth about God]," Webber says, "is reflection on Scripture [God's revelation about himself] within community [that lives God's revelation]."
-Robert Webber, The Divine Embrace
And "spiritual theology," says Eugene Peterson, "is the attention we give to lived theology - prayed and lived, for if it is not prayed, sooner or later it will not be lived from the inside out and in continuity with the Lord of life."
According to Webber, the problem with much contemporary spirituality, Christian or otherwise, is that it is focused on and preoccupied with the self. In Christianity this is manifest in spiritualities of legalism, intellectualism, and experientialism. True spirituality is not only centered on God revealed in Christ, but proceeds from God's story of creation, incarnation-Christ's birth, life, death, and resurrection, and re-creation through the Spirit.
These differing perspectives will manifest themselves in how we interact over issues from worship styles and environmentalism, to ethical discrepancies, doctrinal disagreements, and relational conflict of all kinds. In short, what is at stake is the Gospel, which is the "power of God for salvation to all who believe, the Jew first and to the Greek."
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Faith Bubbles Up
N. T. Wright on Paul's preaching:
Irish Theological Quarterly
72 (2007) 131–146
Paul as Preacher: The Gospel Then and Now, p.138
N. T. Wright
© 2007 Irish Theological Quarterly
God’s word, that is, the message about Jesus as the climax of God’s saving plan, the unfolding of God’s future putting-to-rights of all things, is announced. Foolish and scandalous though it is, when you tell this story, the story of the great eschatological apocalypse that has taken place in Jesus, God’s spirit goes to work in a new apocalyptic event, itself part of the inaugurated eschatology. Human hearts and minds, to their own great surprise, are opened, warmed, challenged, broken and healed and remade, all through the word and the Spirit. And the immediate result, as any reader of Paul will know, is faith: discovering that the creator of the world is our very own Abba, father; believing, against all other evidence and wisdom, that Jesus really was raised from the dead, and that his death was therefore not a nonsensical disaster but really did deal with sin; hailing him gladly as lord.
‘If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord,’ says Paul in Romans 10, ‘and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.’ Granted, each time he defines Christian faith it comes out slightly differently, but that passage sums it up pretty well. The preaching says, Jesus is Lord and God raised him from the dead; the Spirit works through that preaching, so that (although it’s scandalous nonsense) faith bubbles up, the faith which is thus the sure sign that the word has done its work and which is for that reason the single badge, the only badge, by which Christians are to be identified.
Irish Theological Quarterly
72 (2007) 131–146
Paul as Preacher: The Gospel Then and Now, p.138
N. T. Wright
© 2007 Irish Theological Quarterly
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
"authentic Christian mission"
“Historically the church has indeed seen its mission in these broad terms. It is not a matter of engaging in both the gospel and social action, as if Christian social action was something separate from the gospel itself. The gospel has to be demonstrated in word and deed. Biblically, the gospel includes the totality of all that is good news from God for all that is bad news in human life–in every sphere. So like Jesus, authentic Christian mission has included good news for the poor, compassion for the sick and suffering justice for the oppressed, liberation for the enslaved. The gospel of the Servant of God in the power of the Spirit of God addresses every area of human need and every area that has been broken and twisted by sin and evil. And the heart of the gospel, in all of these areas, is the cross of Christ.”
- Christopher J. H. Wright (italics mine)
- found on the front page of The Boars Head Tavern blog
- Christopher J. H. Wright (italics mine)
- found on the front page of The Boars Head Tavern blog
Thursday, October 18, 2007
JESUS and CHANGE
Mars Hill Church's 10th anniversary video. (This year is now their 11th year, and the two things they say have remained constant are JESUS and CHANGE.)
God, would you continue
and increase
this same work of
transforming lives
by the Gospel of Jesus
in cities all over America
and beyond.
Make us true disciples and disciple-makers,
for your glory
and for the good of the world around us.
God, would you continue
and increase
this same work of
transforming lives
by the Gospel of Jesus
in cities all over America
and beyond.
Make us true disciples and disciple-makers,
for your glory
and for the good of the world around us.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Training and Tradition
Some thoughts on training for Christian ministry.
Where I work we talk about it a lot, so I thought, why not a little more? It's natural for us as humans to find that the things that we have systematized and refined for the purposes of understanding and transferability have lost their edge and clarity of vision. So, it's helpful and necessary to rethink old concepts reconstituted in new contexts so as to bring the vision back into focus and the life back into the methods.
In thinking about training, we want to train so as to enable the vision to take root and grow in the community of faith for the sake of the of the world. In our training we want not so much to instruct as to enable, to provide the trellises without which the vines have nowhere to go. We want to make level the roads to freedom, creativity, and inspiration so that students can engage authentically in Christ with the world around them, speaking and acting in the world and as part of the world so as to be light and salt, the truth and redemptive power of the Gospel, to bring people to Christ and Christ to the people.
"Tradition, then, is not something which is essentially static and backward looking. It looks to the past and seeks to learn from its inheritance; but it looks equally to the present and the future, seeking in the acquired wisdom of former generations appropriate ways and means of dealing with new challenges and circumstances; seeking to adapt itself, so that its voice may be heard speaking in the language which today's generation can hear and understand; committed to the view that what it offers is of lasting value, but open in principle to the revision and adaptation which ongoing engagement with reality and new discoveries may compel it to accept." - Trevor Hart in Faith Thinking, p. 180
Where I work we talk about it a lot, so I thought, why not a little more? It's natural for us as humans to find that the things that we have systematized and refined for the purposes of understanding and transferability have lost their edge and clarity of vision. So, it's helpful and necessary to rethink old concepts reconstituted in new contexts so as to bring the vision back into focus and the life back into the methods.
In thinking about training, we want to train so as to enable the vision to take root and grow in the community of faith for the sake of the of the world. In our training we want not so much to instruct as to enable, to provide the trellises without which the vines have nowhere to go. We want to make level the roads to freedom, creativity, and inspiration so that students can engage authentically in Christ with the world around them, speaking and acting in the world and as part of the world so as to be light and salt, the truth and redemptive power of the Gospel, to bring people to Christ and Christ to the people.
"Tradition, then, is not something which is essentially static and backward looking. It looks to the past and seeks to learn from its inheritance; but it looks equally to the present and the future, seeking in the acquired wisdom of former generations appropriate ways and means of dealing with new challenges and circumstances; seeking to adapt itself, so that its voice may be heard speaking in the language which today's generation can hear and understand; committed to the view that what it offers is of lasting value, but open in principle to the revision and adaptation which ongoing engagement with reality and new discoveries may compel it to accept." - Trevor Hart in Faith Thinking, p. 180
Friday, February 02, 2007
Jesus loves porn stars, just in case you were inclined to think otherwise...
Several friends of mine have been telling me about these guys who go to porn conventions and tell people that "Jesus loves porn stars." So, when I saw that they would be on ABC Nightline with Martin Bashir, I put down the remote paid attention for a few minutes.Basically, XXXChurch.com started as a web resource for Christians struggling with pornography, but changed courses a bit when the founders, Craig Gross and JR Mahon, decided to set up a booth (not unlike my organizations "FSK tables") where they handed out New Testaments with "Jesus loves porn stars" on the cover.
The Nightline interview seemed to focus heavily on their impact, or lack thereof, on the porn industry, to which they replied that they weren't trying to stop the porn industry, just inform and educate. By which they meant, I assume, to inform and educate as to the destructive capacities of pornography and the restorative and redemptive power of the Gospel. Mahon and Gross weren't as articulate and insightful as I hoped they would be (but would I be on national television?). But, their actions, of course, were the most telling, which is exactly what they would want, I'm sure. They stand in good company with others that have dined with prostitutes and tax collectors...
While they had some great things to say about pornography and the sex industry, their most powerful confrontation came not in the parking lot of the adult video store but in the front lawn of the local church. In a clear and passionate prophetic voice they said,
"The church is good at sitting in their pews and judging the world, but if you really want to change the world, get off your butts, get out into the community, and do something for a fellow human being. If you're not doing that, and you're just sitting in your pews raising your hands and praising God, then you're not really doing even that." (my rough paraphrase)
It reminded me of something else someone said along the same lines:
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. - James, Jesus' brother, from James 2:8-13
And from Jesus' closest disciple John,
By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth. - 1 John 3:16-18
If you want the scoop from Nightline, check it out here:
ABC News: The Porn Pastors: XXXChurch.com
If you do anything with this information, pray for these guys and all the ones that labor with them. Pray that God would use them and their living out of and proclamation of the Gospel to bring real transformation and freedom and that He would protect them from temptation. They are right in the middle of all sorts of spiritual battles. And then pray for yourselves, that the Spirit of Jesus would show you how you might grow in faithfulness, purity, and how to love "in deed and in truth."
Thursday, December 14, 2006
don't just explain it...
"Ironically, an estimated 90% of the world's Chirstian workers presenting the gospel use highly literate communication styles. They use the printed page or expositional, analytical and logical presentations of God's word. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for oral learners to hear and understand the message and communicate it to others."But, that's exactly part of the problem, that this understanding of "sharing the Gospel" is rooted in where I'm from. I am the product of all that I have inherited culturally, and part of that is a highly literate, abstract-conceptual form of thinking that looks for and responds to "logical presentations." But not everyone is like this, really, most people in the world are not like this, and even for those that are, it's only a percentage of their whole preferred learning methods. Literacy and literate thinking is not the norm, orality and oral communication is.
"All societies, including those having a highly literate segment, have oral comunication at their core. Oral communication is the basic function on which writing and literacy is based. When literacy persists in a culture for generations, it begins to change the way people think, act and communicate...These members of a literate society then tend to communicate the gospel in the literate style that speaks to them."
So, is the goal to make everyone literate like those of us who are? Is that the only way that they can understand the Gospel? Reason and experience tell us otherwise. Just as Paul and the first centuries of Christians translated the Gospel into the Greek culture around them, so we must work to translate the Gospel into the cultures that we go to or find ourselves in. And this is more than just using different words or languages; it involves entirely different forms of communication including "stories, proverbs, poetry, chants, music, dances, ceremonies and rites of passage."
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
a new effort
I was saved from a Hindu family in 1995 through a cross-cultural missionary. I had a desire to learn more about the word of God and I shared this with the missionary. The missionary sent me to Bible College in 1996... I started sharing the good news in the way as I learnt in the Bible College.. To my surprise my people were not able to understand my message. A few people accepted the Lord after much labour...there were little results.
In 1999 I attended a seminar where I learnt how to communicate the gospel using different oral methods. I understood the problem in my communication as I was mostly using a lecture method with printed books, which I learnt in the Bible school. After the seminar I went to the village but this time I changed my way of communication. I started using a storytelling method in my native language. I used gospel songs and the traditional music of my people. This time the people in the villages began to understand the gospel in a better way. As a result of it people began to come in large numbers. Many accepted Christ and took baptism. There was on church with few baptized members in 1999...now in 2004, in six years we have 75 churches with 1350 baptized members and 100 more people are ready for baptism.
This is just one of many stories from all over the world that have been surfacing for the past decade (at least) concerning a paradigm shift in how people are introduced to God, Jesus, and Christianity and subsequently discipled in the faith. For the next few weeks I will be blogging about this in response to the book, Making Disciples of Oral Learners, published by the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, originally published as a paper for their 2004 forum in Thailand.
Of course, at face value, you may be wondering what this has to do with evangelism in the United States. I mean, we can all read and write, right? Well, yes, and no, and we'll discuss that as we go. I'll just say for now that our ability to read and write (or lack thereof) isn't as fundamental as we'd like to think it is, and that even though we're a highly literate culture, most of us still learn best through oral methods (including pictures and movies), and, it is story and stories that shape our worldview more than anything else.
So, if you'd like to check the book out for yourself, please do. You can read it for free online! And, until next time, read a good story or two...
Sunday, October 08, 2006
agendas
I was talking to my friend Chris the other day about conversations with people wherein we discover that what seems to be one reason for a certain line of questioning or behavior actually turns out to be another and how that can be rather offensive and manipulative. It seems that in those situations, the issue is not so much that the person had a secret agenda behind their questions and behavior, but that it was a secret agenda.
There's a lot of fuss today made over people who have agendas behind their words and actions in everything from personal relationships to politics, philosophy, and religion. Of course nobody likes to be manipulated, and it seems that since Nietzche people have turned their glaring skeptical eyes on those who speak from those podiums of politics, religion, and philosophy, especially the first two. It seems that I always hear in critiques of political or religious leaders something to the effect of "Well, he's just trying to control this or that commodity or population" or "She's just saying that because she is really a ... (fundamentalist or liberal or witch or some other pejorative label) and is trying to push her agenda in order to control everyone else's."
Well, all of these critiques may or may not be true, but it seems that when it comes down to it, like I said above, the issue is not that someone is pushing an agenda, but that their pushing a secret agenda. I mean, the reality is that everyone has an agenda in what they say or do. Even people who decry those who push an agenda are at that moment pushing the agenda that others should not push their agenda. (It's kinda like the nonsense of the statement that "there is no absolute truth except for the statement that there is no absolute truth".)
The real trouble comes when people are dishonest or misleading or not forthcoming with their presuppositions and agendas that they speak from in everything from personal relationships to politics, religion, and philosophy. I mean, if you come to me and ask me leading questions and try to pin me in corner so that I come out agreeing with something yet uncommunicated in your head, then I may come out of that corner agreeing in word, but it may only be just to get out of that corner, and I will neither like you nor your idea as a result. But, on the other hand, if you think I'm wrong about something or doing something I shouldn't be, then just tell me. I mean, give me the benefit of the doubt and all, but just tell me, and we'll talk about why you think that. Sure, your agenda is to correct me. That's fine. I may need correcting, or I may not. But I can deal with that. Just don't act like there's nothing behind your words or questions. Nobody likes that.
So, when these things go cosmic, like I said, everyone has an agenda. There's no need to get all worked up about that. What needs to happen, especially in religion and politics, is people need to be honest with themselves and with others about their agenda-driven words and actions. Then, and only then, can we actually deal with the issue at hand. Then, and only then, can we talk about why this or that is being said or done in an intelligent and respectful way. Then, and only then, do we really connect on a fundamental level, even an intimate level, with what really matters in these conversations, people and their agendas, or really, the story they live by, their worldview. And that's when real sparks start to fly and people are changed, very much unlike the premature polarizing, hot-air name-calling that we hear on the news and participate in ourselves.
May God give us grace and mercy to be honest and forthcoming, not fearful or manipulative, in displaying integrity in our relationships, our politics, and our religion.
The bush we beat around has had quite enough, thank you very much. :)
There's a lot of fuss today made over people who have agendas behind their words and actions in everything from personal relationships to politics, philosophy, and religion. Of course nobody likes to be manipulated, and it seems that since Nietzche people have turned their glaring skeptical eyes on those who speak from those podiums of politics, religion, and philosophy, especially the first two. It seems that I always hear in critiques of political or religious leaders something to the effect of "Well, he's just trying to control this or that commodity or population" or "She's just saying that because she is really a ... (fundamentalist or liberal or witch or some other pejorative label) and is trying to push her agenda in order to control everyone else's."
Well, all of these critiques may or may not be true, but it seems that when it comes down to it, like I said above, the issue is not that someone is pushing an agenda, but that their pushing a secret agenda. I mean, the reality is that everyone has an agenda in what they say or do. Even people who decry those who push an agenda are at that moment pushing the agenda that others should not push their agenda. (It's kinda like the nonsense of the statement that "there is no absolute truth except for the statement that there is no absolute truth".)
The real trouble comes when people are dishonest or misleading or not forthcoming with their presuppositions and agendas that they speak from in everything from personal relationships to politics, religion, and philosophy. I mean, if you come to me and ask me leading questions and try to pin me in corner so that I come out agreeing with something yet uncommunicated in your head, then I may come out of that corner agreeing in word, but it may only be just to get out of that corner, and I will neither like you nor your idea as a result. But, on the other hand, if you think I'm wrong about something or doing something I shouldn't be, then just tell me. I mean, give me the benefit of the doubt and all, but just tell me, and we'll talk about why you think that. Sure, your agenda is to correct me. That's fine. I may need correcting, or I may not. But I can deal with that. Just don't act like there's nothing behind your words or questions. Nobody likes that.
So, when these things go cosmic, like I said, everyone has an agenda. There's no need to get all worked up about that. What needs to happen, especially in religion and politics, is people need to be honest with themselves and with others about their agenda-driven words and actions. Then, and only then, can we actually deal with the issue at hand. Then, and only then, can we talk about why this or that is being said or done in an intelligent and respectful way. Then, and only then, do we really connect on a fundamental level, even an intimate level, with what really matters in these conversations, people and their agendas, or really, the story they live by, their worldview. And that's when real sparks start to fly and people are changed, very much unlike the premature polarizing, hot-air name-calling that we hear on the news and participate in ourselves.
May God give us grace and mercy to be honest and forthcoming, not fearful or manipulative, in displaying integrity in our relationships, our politics, and our religion.
The bush we beat around has had quite enough, thank you very much. :)
Monday, September 25, 2006
Understanding Sin
I was replying to a comment to a post on Fireseed Anthology, and well, it just got too long to be a comment-reply, so I'm putting on here. Heck, anything I can do to keep the blogging up is good, right?
Hmm...yeah, there certainly is a problem with understanding sin, either the seriousness of it or it's existence altogether, depending on how much the person is a product of the current post-modern culture or the modern one.
Tim Keller, a pastor in New York City commented on this, and I think it is spot on when it comes to discussing sin with people. He said that when he talks to someone from his generation, say 40 and up, about sin being "not morally perfect" or "missing the mark", they get it. But when he talks to someone of the current generation, it just doesn't make sense to them b/c "morals are relative" and "whose to say whose 'mark' you should be hitting anyway". Instead, Keller says, he finds that when he discusses sin in terms of idolatry, looking to activities, relationships, achievments, cool stuff, to make you a whole or valuable person and exalting those things as your "savior" or "life-center", people look at him and say "oh". They get it.
I personally think that this is what we should have been saying all along, seeing as Paul, Jesus, and the whole of the OT put idolatry as the fundamental error of humankind.
When I think about it that way, I get it, and it's much more convicting and producing of repentance than when I just think, "oops, i broke the 'love your neighbor' rule".
I'd much rather be pointed, and point others, away from a non-person, a non-god, to the person, the one true God, than make the center of the conversation about some abstract moral code.
I think that's what Paul was focused on when he said to the Thessalonians "For the people of those regions report about us what kind of welcome we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God..." in 1 Thess. 1:9.
I hope this makes someone angry and want to comment because I like it when people comment because no one ever does, except for a couple people who are very excellent.
Okay, I don't really want anyone to be angry, I just would rather have a conversation than a monologue, even if it's in disagreement.
Peace.
Hmm...yeah, there certainly is a problem with understanding sin, either the seriousness of it or it's existence altogether, depending on how much the person is a product of the current post-modern culture or the modern one.
Tim Keller, a pastor in New York City commented on this, and I think it is spot on when it comes to discussing sin with people. He said that when he talks to someone from his generation, say 40 and up, about sin being "not morally perfect" or "missing the mark", they get it. But when he talks to someone of the current generation, it just doesn't make sense to them b/c "morals are relative" and "whose to say whose 'mark' you should be hitting anyway". Instead, Keller says, he finds that when he discusses sin in terms of idolatry, looking to activities, relationships, achievments, cool stuff, to make you a whole or valuable person and exalting those things as your "savior" or "life-center", people look at him and say "oh". They get it.
I personally think that this is what we should have been saying all along, seeing as Paul, Jesus, and the whole of the OT put idolatry as the fundamental error of humankind.
When I think about it that way, I get it, and it's much more convicting and producing of repentance than when I just think, "oops, i broke the 'love your neighbor' rule".
I'd much rather be pointed, and point others, away from a non-person, a non-god, to the person, the one true God, than make the center of the conversation about some abstract moral code.
I think that's what Paul was focused on when he said to the Thessalonians "For the people of those regions report about us what kind of welcome we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God..." in 1 Thess. 1:9.
I hope this makes someone angry and want to comment because I like it when people comment because no one ever does, except for a couple people who are very excellent.
Okay, I don't really want anyone to be angry, I just would rather have a conversation than a monologue, even if it's in disagreement.
Peace.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
story
I am copying this over from something I wrote in reply to a friend's question: why do stories have the ability to awaken parts of our soul?
I like stories. I think they're good, and here's why I think they might be important too.
Hmm... good question. I have been intrigued by this question, and so the other day I rented and watched Tim Burton's Big Fish. It's all about the power of stories, especially in light of their correspondence/non-correspondence to what actually happened. As the movie goes, several things come to the surface, one of which is that we all tell stories, just in different ways, and with different sorts of embelishments, but in the end, the power of the story lies in it's ability to communicate reality in such a way that it disturbs your view of reality, your own self-told story, to the end that you begin to live in that reality, you begin to tell that story as your own.
To quote somebody who seems to know a thing or two about stories:
"We (humans in general; the communities of which you and I, as readers, are part) tell ourselves certain stories about the world, and about who we are within it. . . The point at issue here is that the story (of Jesus) has brought a worldview to birth. By reading it historicaly, I can detect that it was always intended as a subversive story, undermining a current worldview and attempting to replace it with another. By reading it with my own ears open, I realize that it may subvert my worldview too."
- N.T. Wright, _The New Testament and the People of God_
So, that's a few thoughts on the power of stories. I have also been listening to Patty Griffin a lot recently, and she tells a lot of stories in her songs. And I think the combination of good music and good story are incredibly powerful. You see that a bit in the way that communism spread through poems and songs and things like the "Little Red Song Book" of the Industrial Workers of the World. It may be a stretch for me to say this, but while philosophical dissertations may lay the groundwork, it's the stories and songs that tell those larger stories that bring about revolutions.
I'd love to hear anyone else's thoughts on the matter, especially what to do with those thoughts...how to take those abstract ideas and conclusions and bring them into the concrete of conversations and actions. I think we need to think about it, talk about out, and try it out in order to increasingly bring the kingdom of God to bear on the world of God as people of the family of God.
Kerby
I like stories. I think they're good, and here's why I think they might be important too.
Hmm... good question. I have been intrigued by this question, and so the other day I rented and watched Tim Burton's Big Fish. It's all about the power of stories, especially in light of their correspondence/non-correspondence to what actually happened. As the movie goes, several things come to the surface, one of which is that we all tell stories, just in different ways, and with different sorts of embelishments, but in the end, the power of the story lies in it's ability to communicate reality in such a way that it disturbs your view of reality, your own self-told story, to the end that you begin to live in that reality, you begin to tell that story as your own.
To quote somebody who seems to know a thing or two about stories:
"We (humans in general; the communities of which you and I, as readers, are part) tell ourselves certain stories about the world, and about who we are within it. . . The point at issue here is that the story (of Jesus) has brought a worldview to birth. By reading it historicaly, I can detect that it was always intended as a subversive story, undermining a current worldview and attempting to replace it with another. By reading it with my own ears open, I realize that it may subvert my worldview too."
- N.T. Wright, _The New Testament and the People of God_
So, that's a few thoughts on the power of stories. I have also been listening to Patty Griffin a lot recently, and she tells a lot of stories in her songs. And I think the combination of good music and good story are incredibly powerful. You see that a bit in the way that communism spread through poems and songs and things like the "Little Red Song Book" of the Industrial Workers of the World. It may be a stretch for me to say this, but while philosophical dissertations may lay the groundwork, it's the stories and songs that tell those larger stories that bring about revolutions.
I'd love to hear anyone else's thoughts on the matter, especially what to do with those thoughts...how to take those abstract ideas and conclusions and bring them into the concrete of conversations and actions. I think we need to think about it, talk about out, and try it out in order to increasingly bring the kingdom of God to bear on the world of God as people of the family of God.
Kerby
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
