A little slideshow video tour of the past year-ish of Oklahoma Catalytic students and staff sent throughout the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The audio is "Take to the World", written by Aaron Tate, sung by Derek Webb and Dan Haseltine, from Derek's album, "She Must and Shall Go Free."
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
para-church phase out response
This is a response to this blog entry about a proposal to phase out the campus ministry of CCC. Neither the original blog nor my response are the opinions of CCC or the expression of anything bad or mean or disrespectful towards the past, present, or future of CCC. It's just some thoughts, theories, and desires for how things might be, hopefully in a way that is faithful to the heart of Jesus and the teaching of the New Testament.
Here's the original blog post: Parachurch Phase-out
Here's my response:
Kristie, you are thinking in a very good direction. Along with Melinda, I am also on staff in the Red River Region. I was involved with Crusade in limited fashion during college through my church's partnership with WSN and some relationships with staff and cru folk. I was on STINT for two years in East Asia with a team made up only from my church, and have since returned to be part of the Oklahoma Catalytic team.
Since my long term involvement with Crusade happened as a result of my church's partnership with WSN, I have always felt the need for a closer relationship between the campus ministry and the local church. So, like I said, you're thinking in a very good direction.
It's always precarious to make sweeping generalizations about things that are beyond one's ability to comprehensively evaluate, but I'm going to try anyway (I guess I just did...). There's an unhealthy split between the campus ministry and the local church. I say that because most Crusade students I know have very limited connection to any local church, if they have any at all. Most only attend a Sunday service weekly at best. I keep hearing from students the line that "In crusade I get fellowship, mission, Bible teaching, worship. Why should I go to church? Isn't that what it's for?"
Well, it seems to me that many Crusade students, and others probably, don't know what church is, and we may in fact need better definitions. I think most everyone realizes that the church is not the building; it is the people of God. But, if that is it, then when we plant movements, are we not then planting churches?
Recently at a Growing and Planting Movements conference, I asked this question during a Q&A time, "What's the difference between building movements and planting churches?" The answer was several minutes of silence. I think this was in part due to the fact that people using the language of building movements is new and very similar to the rapidly mulitplying church planting movements going on around the world. (We were even given the IMB's guide to planting Rapidly Multiplying Church Planting movements at our regional time at this last CSU conference.) It seems that this is a question that we are still working on.
From what one of the national team said, Campus Crusade for Christ as an organization has had a really good track record in working with local churches and denominations. Just read _Come Help Change the World_ and you can see that, but the campus ministry has not always been as successful in partnering with local churches and denominations. There are pockets where this is not the case, but until recently in Catalytic, it has not been something we have pursued with much conviction. I pray this continues to change.
In honor of Justin Timberlake with respect to para-church ministry, I would like to bring "para" back. Parachurch was meant to come along side the local church to strengthen it and reach out in ways that it couldn't (and many times wouldn't). But when it comes to campus ministry, it is not good enough simply that "we do our thing, they do theirs, and hopefully some crossover will happen when students graduate and join a church or someone from the church joins staff or supports us."
Like you Kristie, I would love to see the day when we work ourselves out of a job when it comes to doing all of the evangelism and discipleship on campus. If we are really going to reach all of the students of the world, it's going to happen through the ministry of local churches who stay there year after year and continue to train and disciple college students in large numbers as they pass through college. It will take a movement of "volunteers", plain and simple. Churches in their very nature are much more stable than campus ministries and much less dependent on the coming and going student leaders.
And I say this much not even having mentioned the question "what is church?" If a proper, God-ordained, apostolically proclaimed visible church body includes things like baptism, eucharist, elders, deacons, discipline, and social justice then we've got a problem when students feel that Crusade is their church because the worship, evangelize, fellowship, and learn the Word in that community. Because, in reality, many campus ministries (to overgeneralize again) function like churches on campus with staff as elders, student leaders as deacons, focusing on evangelism and discipleship without much concern for social justice and no baptisms or eucharist. (My pastor even remarked to me one day that he thought it would be great if orgs like CCC started baptizing and serving communion...) If all that students of a campus ministry see church for is getting baptized and occasional sunday mornings with communion if they come on the right day, then we have done a terrible injustice to them and to the church, and we have not set them up with a good ecclesiology to live from before and after they graduate.
I do think the catalytic style is heading in the right direction on this, but it must keep adapting. Reproducing staffed campus models on unstaffed campuses is not what we should aim for. This is, I believe, what Movements Everywhere and Mulitple Movements are all about, and without local church involvement and ownership, it will not succeed. (Unless of course God decides to reject the local church in this and work outside of it, but I don't think that is the case, and we would still continue to run into the same problems down the road and find that we would need to start planting churches anyway.) The campus ministry is not in the business of planting churches and shouldn't be, the freshman to senior cycle is too fast and volatile. But, if we do not work closely with local churches in building movements everywhere in every group on campus, then we will be planting churches, lopsided and unhealthy ones at that. And I don't know anyone in the campus ministry that wants to start planting CCC churches.
So, all that to say I like your proposal, but I would tweak a few things. I do think it will be necessary for Crusade staff to remain intimately involved on campus, but in a different way. My vision of the staff of the future would be that a majority of the campus staff would be catalytic and forerunners. The primary goals of the staff would be to network and build partnerships with local churches to reach campuses near them and to train church volunteers and student leaders in building and sustaining mulitplying movements of evangelism and discipleship. Bible studies and weekly meetings and such for the different movements on campus would be the responsibility of the students under the guidance and support of church volunteers and in line with the vision of CCC as communicated through the staff.
Staff would be the ones that keep expanding things, taking on new campuses and partnerships, both locally and with WSN, and giving vision and training for the volunteers and student leaders. There will certainly be room for continued one-to-one discipleship with students (because the staff still need to be intimately connected to the student world), but it will be limited.
One area in which I see great potential in this is in a CCC strategy called No Boundaries (www.nobounds.org) in which staff seek to plant churches in hard to reach countries through college students. Students who have been involved in campus ministry within the context of a chruch would be very prepared to enter into this kind of effort.
So, that's quite a comment, I know. I always seem to post long comments... But, please take it as a complement to the thought-provokingness of your post. I hope this discussion continues and even moves up the chain, which I'm sure it has in some fashion already. We probably just don't know about it yet.
Here's the original blog post: Parachurch Phase-out
Here's my response:
Kristie, you are thinking in a very good direction. Along with Melinda, I am also on staff in the Red River Region. I was involved with Crusade in limited fashion during college through my church's partnership with WSN and some relationships with staff and cru folk. I was on STINT for two years in East Asia with a team made up only from my church, and have since returned to be part of the Oklahoma Catalytic team.
Since my long term involvement with Crusade happened as a result of my church's partnership with WSN, I have always felt the need for a closer relationship between the campus ministry and the local church. So, like I said, you're thinking in a very good direction.
It's always precarious to make sweeping generalizations about things that are beyond one's ability to comprehensively evaluate, but I'm going to try anyway (I guess I just did...). There's an unhealthy split between the campus ministry and the local church. I say that because most Crusade students I know have very limited connection to any local church, if they have any at all. Most only attend a Sunday service weekly at best. I keep hearing from students the line that "In crusade I get fellowship, mission, Bible teaching, worship. Why should I go to church? Isn't that what it's for?"
Well, it seems to me that many Crusade students, and others probably, don't know what church is, and we may in fact need better definitions. I think most everyone realizes that the church is not the building; it is the people of God. But, if that is it, then when we plant movements, are we not then planting churches?
Recently at a Growing and Planting Movements conference, I asked this question during a Q&A time, "What's the difference between building movements and planting churches?" The answer was several minutes of silence. I think this was in part due to the fact that people using the language of building movements is new and very similar to the rapidly mulitplying church planting movements going on around the world. (We were even given the IMB's guide to planting Rapidly Multiplying Church Planting movements at our regional time at this last CSU conference.) It seems that this is a question that we are still working on.
From what one of the national team said, Campus Crusade for Christ as an organization has had a really good track record in working with local churches and denominations. Just read _Come Help Change the World_ and you can see that, but the campus ministry has not always been as successful in partnering with local churches and denominations. There are pockets where this is not the case, but until recently in Catalytic, it has not been something we have pursued with much conviction. I pray this continues to change.
In honor of Justin Timberlake with respect to para-church ministry, I would like to bring "para" back. Parachurch was meant to come along side the local church to strengthen it and reach out in ways that it couldn't (and many times wouldn't). But when it comes to campus ministry, it is not good enough simply that "we do our thing, they do theirs, and hopefully some crossover will happen when students graduate and join a church or someone from the church joins staff or supports us."
Like you Kristie, I would love to see the day when we work ourselves out of a job when it comes to doing all of the evangelism and discipleship on campus. If we are really going to reach all of the students of the world, it's going to happen through the ministry of local churches who stay there year after year and continue to train and disciple college students in large numbers as they pass through college. It will take a movement of "volunteers", plain and simple. Churches in their very nature are much more stable than campus ministries and much less dependent on the coming and going student leaders.
And I say this much not even having mentioned the question "what is church?" If a proper, God-ordained, apostolically proclaimed visible church body includes things like baptism, eucharist, elders, deacons, discipline, and social justice then we've got a problem when students feel that Crusade is their church because the worship, evangelize, fellowship, and learn the Word in that community. Because, in reality, many campus ministries (to overgeneralize again) function like churches on campus with staff as elders, student leaders as deacons, focusing on evangelism and discipleship without much concern for social justice and no baptisms or eucharist. (My pastor even remarked to me one day that he thought it would be great if orgs like CCC started baptizing and serving communion...) If all that students of a campus ministry see church for is getting baptized and occasional sunday mornings with communion if they come on the right day, then we have done a terrible injustice to them and to the church, and we have not set them up with a good ecclesiology to live from before and after they graduate.
I do think the catalytic style is heading in the right direction on this, but it must keep adapting. Reproducing staffed campus models on unstaffed campuses is not what we should aim for. This is, I believe, what Movements Everywhere and Mulitple Movements are all about, and without local church involvement and ownership, it will not succeed. (Unless of course God decides to reject the local church in this and work outside of it, but I don't think that is the case, and we would still continue to run into the same problems down the road and find that we would need to start planting churches anyway.) The campus ministry is not in the business of planting churches and shouldn't be, the freshman to senior cycle is too fast and volatile. But, if we do not work closely with local churches in building movements everywhere in every group on campus, then we will be planting churches, lopsided and unhealthy ones at that. And I don't know anyone in the campus ministry that wants to start planting CCC churches.
So, all that to say I like your proposal, but I would tweak a few things. I do think it will be necessary for Crusade staff to remain intimately involved on campus, but in a different way. My vision of the staff of the future would be that a majority of the campus staff would be catalytic and forerunners. The primary goals of the staff would be to network and build partnerships with local churches to reach campuses near them and to train church volunteers and student leaders in building and sustaining mulitplying movements of evangelism and discipleship. Bible studies and weekly meetings and such for the different movements on campus would be the responsibility of the students under the guidance and support of church volunteers and in line with the vision of CCC as communicated through the staff.
Staff would be the ones that keep expanding things, taking on new campuses and partnerships, both locally and with WSN, and giving vision and training for the volunteers and student leaders. There will certainly be room for continued one-to-one discipleship with students (because the staff still need to be intimately connected to the student world), but it will be limited.
One area in which I see great potential in this is in a CCC strategy called No Boundaries (www.nobounds.org) in which staff seek to plant churches in hard to reach countries through college students. Students who have been involved in campus ministry within the context of a chruch would be very prepared to enter into this kind of effort.
So, that's quite a comment, I know. I always seem to post long comments... But, please take it as a complement to the thought-provokingness of your post. I hope this discussion continues and even moves up the chain, which I'm sure it has in some fashion already. We probably just don't know about it yet.
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
a trinity prayer
The following prayer is from a book by Tom Wright entitled Bringing the Church to the World. Sometimes we neglect the simple, repeatable, foundational prayers because of a misunderstanding of the prohibition to not use "vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words." The issue was the vanity of their babbling, as some translations have it, not just the fact that they said the same thing twice, or three or four times, and the fact that they expected to be heard by their idol-gods because of the quantity of their repetitions or something like that. But for those who personally address the one and only Creator, there is no vanity in addressing him, one, two, five, or even one hundred times a day, regardless of the variety of the content of the addressing. Did not Jesus validate the persistent (or nagging?) widow who won over the unrighteous judge? Or maybe we just don't know the benefits of it... I for one sure don't, but I know there are many whom have gone before me that do. And, I think I'd like to learn. So, anyway, here it is. If you'd like to read the corresponding chapter out of Wright's book, you can find it here. It's a good one.
Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth:
Set up your kingdom in our midst.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God:
Have mercy on me, a sinner.
Holy Spirit, breath of the living God:
Renew me and all the world.
Kerby
Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth:
Set up your kingdom in our midst.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God:
Have mercy on me, a sinner.
Holy Spirit, breath of the living God:
Renew me and all the world.
Kerby
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Perspective
(Partially copy 'n' pasted from my comment on Melinda Carter's blog.)I was thinking today about the two things we do with the Bible on Sundays, Wednesday nights, and other things like that; we read it for ourselves, and we have it explained to us. I was thinking about that and realizing that a lot of time the explanation of what the Bible says is often valued more than the what the Bible actually says. I have seen it in others and in myself as I reflect on times when I didn't want to read the Bible because it didn't tell me what to do whereas some "Christian Inspiration" book would explain the problem and give me 5 steps to work it out... I have since (mostly) repented of that... :)
It seems that instead of letting the Bible speak for itself, we feel the necessity to explain what it should mean for us here and now. Of course, this is necessary, and I don't want to disparage the great gift of expository preaching, but it must arise out of a culture that is already letting "the Bible be the Bible" (to steal a comment from N.T. Wright). Now, I must to cross back over the bridge I just burned in order to say that there may need to be a lot of explaining in order to educate a culture in how to understand the Bible as the kind of ancient mostly narrative book that it is, but, after that, I say, let the stories of the Bible stir up thougths and emotions that we are not used to. Let the parables make us uncomfortable, not just because we may think we know what they mean and that convicts us, but also because we may not really know what they mean, and that should humble us before the one who does. Let us be offended, and corrected, when Jesus curses a fig tree just to make a point or refers to us Gentiles as animals who get the crumbs from his table. I think there are good theological and practical explanations to these sorts of things, but sometimes we miss the point when someone is trying to make the point for us.
So, all that to say, I don't want to do away with expository preaching, commentaries, Christian books and the like, I and we still benefit from those things tremendously, let's just tip the scales back in the direction of hearing from the stories of the Bible itself, allowing ourselves to get caught up in the Story that God has been writing since Adam and Eve, and is now including us in as key players in one of the last acts. May we be faithful to the Author and true to the story that we have inherited through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
(This last paragraph is heavenly influenced by an article by N.T. Wright entitled, "How can the Bible be Authoritative?")
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
A Date with a Counselor
I'm feeling a little defensive about the idea that there's something wrong with just knowing about God as opposed to knowing God. I'm learning a lot about Jesus right now as I read through and study the Gospel of Matthew, and I think that a large part of getting to know someone is knowing about their life outside of their direct involvement in mine. Then I have a better idea and context for his involvement in my life. Otherwise I feel like it's just a series of appointments with a professional counselor whom you know nothing about outside of those appointments... Anyway, that's just my soapbox and justification for enjoying studying about Jesus. Sorry.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Thank God for calculus...
Sometimes God moves loudly, as if spinning to another place like ball lightning. God is, oddly, personal; this God knows. Sometimes en route, dazzlingly or dimly, he shows an edge of himself to souls who seek him, and the people who bear those souls, marveling, know it, and see the skies carousing around them, and watch cells stream and multiply in green leaves. He does not give as the world gives; he leads invisibly over many years, or he wallops for thirty seconds at a time.
We live in all we seek. The hidden shows up in too-plain sight. It lives captive on the face of the obvious - the people, events, and things of the day - to which we as sophisticated children have long since become oblivious. What a hideout: Holiness lies spread and borne over the surface of time and stuff like color.
- Annie Dillard, For the Time Being
I find the story of God to be full of paradox, full of contrast. I draw short of saying contradiction, mostly because of the crossed-finger belief that God is consistent and pure. But, nonetheless, His story - before, now, after - is one with asymptotes, discontinuities. As He disappears into heaven, He comes forth from the dust to catch us by surprise. Whew, what a relief!
The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever...
At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants."
We live in all we seek. The hidden shows up in too-plain sight. It lives captive on the face of the obvious - the people, events, and things of the day - to which we as sophisticated children have long since become oblivious. What a hideout: Holiness lies spread and borne over the surface of time and stuff like color.
- Annie Dillard, For the Time Being
I find the story of God to be full of paradox, full of contrast. I draw short of saying contradiction, mostly because of the crossed-finger belief that God is consistent and pure. But, nonetheless, His story - before, now, after - is one with asymptotes, discontinuities. As He disappears into heaven, He comes forth from the dust to catch us by surprise. Whew, what a relief!
The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever...
At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants."
Sunday, May 21, 2006
A nice British chap
Check this guy out. I'll let you know what I think in a little while.
N.T. Wright on Jesus at the InterVarsity Press Conference, January of 1999:
Jesus and the Kingdom (8.5MB MP3)
Jesus and the Cross (8.2MB MP3)
Jesus and God (10.4MB MP3)
Jesus and the World's True Light (9.8MB MP3)
N.T. Wright on Jesus at the InterVarsity Press Conference, January of 1999:
Jesus and the Kingdom (8.5MB MP3)
Jesus and the Cross (8.2MB MP3)
Jesus and God (10.4MB MP3)
Jesus and the World's True Light (9.8MB MP3)
Easter revisited
I moved the following over from my website. I posted it during the week before Easter:
Daily Entries
04.19.06
"It has been said that, in the New Testament, doctrine is grace, and ethics is gratitude; and something is wrong with any form of Christianity in which, experimentally and practically, this saying is not being verified. Those who suppose that the doctrine of God's grace tends to encourage moral laxity ("final salvation is certain anyway, no matter what we do; therefore our conduct doesn't matter") are simply showing that, in the most literal sense, they do not know what they are talking about. For love awakens love in return..."
- J.I. Packer, from Knowing God
04.18.06 Easter Tuesday
The Collect
"Grant, we beseech thee, Amighty God, that we who celebrate with reverence the Paschal feast, may be found worthy to attain to everlasting joys; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
For the Epistle
The Gospel
04.17.06 Easter Monday
The Collect (from the Book of Common Prayer)
"O God, whose blessed Son did manifest himself to his disciples in the breaking of bread; Open, we pray thee, the eyes of our faith, that we may behold thee in all thy works; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
For the Epistle
The Gospel
04.16.06 Easter Sunday
Christ the Lord Is Risen Today
1. Christ, the Lord, is risen today, Alleluia!
Sons of men and angels say, Alleluia!
Raise your voice and triumphs high, Alleluia!
Sing, ye heavens, and earth, reply, Alleluia!
2. Vain the stone, the watch, the seal, Alleluia!
Christ has burst the gates of hell, Alleluia!
Death in vain forbids His rise, Alleluia!
Christ has opened
3. Lives again our glorious King, Alleluia!
Where, O death, is now thy sting? Alleluia!
Once He died, our souls to save, Alleluia!
Where thy victory, O grave? Alleluia!
4. Soar we now where Christ has led, Alleluia!
Following our exalted Head, Alleluia!
Made like Him, like Him we rise, Alleluia!
Ours the cross, the grave, the skies, Alleluia!
5. Hail, the Lord of earth and heaven! Alleluia!
Praise to Thee by both be given, Alleluia!
Thee we greet triumphant now, Alleluia!
Hail, the Resurrection, thou! Alleluia!
Happy Resurrection Day!
And some tunes:
Song o' the day
Good Friday, 4/14
O Come And Mourn
(lyrics)
(album 3)
Resurrection Sunday 4/16
And Can It Be
(lyrics)
(album 1)
Buy Indelible Grace music!
from the song:
"I woke, the dungeon flamed with light; My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee."
"We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."
-the letter of Paul to the Romans
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
goethe & moses & paul
"The greatest happiness of the thinking man is to have fathomed what can be fathomed, and quietly to reverence what is unfathomable." - Goethe, Sprüche in Prosa (Proverbs in Prose)
"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." - Moses
"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!" - Paul, the Apostle
Sunday, May 14, 2006
old guys
Upon inspiration from a dear friend of mine (one of probably two people that read this blog...), I have begun a inquiry into the doctrine of the nature of the inspiration of the Bible. I plan on doing this for the next few months, just enough time to get really confused and give up... :) So, I thought I'd stick some stuff on hear, just in case anyone wants to come with me on this journey (or encourage me or tell me it's hopeless or I'm terribly wrong...the second two of which I will promptly delete from my comments...) Here's some perspectives that I ran across today.Disclaimer: The views expressed by the authors is not necessarily the views of the blogger, just something important to consider and pay attention to, possibly even agree with, maybe.
About the authors of scripture: "[Their sole function was] to present themselves pure to the energy of the Divine Spirit, in order that the Divine plectrum itself, descending from Heaven and using righteous men as an instrument like a harp or lyre, might reveal the knowledge of things Divine." - Justin Martyr, early church apologist
About Clement of Alexandria: "Clement's view of the plenary authority of the Old and New Testaments is unequivocal: he admits the doctrine of verbal inspiration, but finds himself sorely tried by the difficulty of reconciling his reason with his faith, the philosophy of Greece with the teaching of the Law and the Prophets.... he advocates no bald mechanical theory which leaves no room for the exercise of men's faculties, but that the human side of inspiration must be allowed due recognition.... And once more, Clement teaches us that the man who believes the Divine Scriptures with sure judgment receives in the Voice of God, Who bestowed the Scripture, a demonstration which cannot be impugned." - George Duncan Barry in his book The Inspiration and Authority of the Holy Scriptures, A Study in the Literature of the First Five Centuries
On the Scriptures: "Every letter, how strange so ever, which stands written in the Oracles of God does its work." - Origen
And finally, a little bit of ol' John Calvin: "For if we consider how slippery is the human mind...how prone to all kinds of error...we can perceive how necessary is such a repository of heavenly doctrine, that it will neither perish by forgetfulness, nor vanish in error, nor be corrupted by the audacity of men."
So, that's what I did today, as well as taking a picture of my surroundings as you can see above. Alright, I'm tapping out. More to come later.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
uncle! thoughts on moleskins to start....
Okay, i give in. I'm going to blog now. I don't know if it's cause I feel inspired or just because I just read a friends really cool blog and feel out of the loop, but here goes nothing...really, mostly nothing.
Now I know there are great things to live up to as a blogger in the 21st century. I mean, people have been doing it for what, 5, maybe 10 years now. I've got a lot profundity, randomness, and clever little artsy stuff to put out. I should get busy.
My first bit will be a little plug for moleskin journals. I'm probably late to the game on this one, but it doesn't matter when I show, just how I play when I get there, right? My moleskin is the basic "ruled notebook". It has 192 ruled pages with a pocket in the back for all that stuff that you would put in a journal pocket if you had one, and it is the legendary notebook of Picasso, Hemingway, and some guy named Chatwin. They were originally made by small French bookbinders, whom may have been small in stature (as Meredith would like to believe), but were most likely small in the commercial sense of the word. It's really the journal that I have always wanted. Maybe my life will be better and my thoughts more profound now...yes, as sure as the Nike is fast they will!
I could go on, and I probably should seeing as this could possibly be the first and last entry in my blog. But, I will risk it, close my entry for the day, trusting that tomorrow will bring more fascinating thoughts for me to share with everyone and no one at the same time.
Till then, Au revoir! (that's french for goodbye...) ;)
Now I know there are great things to live up to as a blogger in the 21st century. I mean, people have been doing it for what, 5, maybe 10 years now. I've got a lot profundity, randomness, and clever little artsy stuff to put out. I should get busy.
My first bit will be a little plug for moleskin journals. I'm probably late to the game on this one, but it doesn't matter when I show, just how I play when I get there, right? My moleskin is the basic "ruled notebook". It has 192 ruled pages with a pocket in the back for all that stuff that you would put in a journal pocket if you had one, and it is the legendary notebook of Picasso, Hemingway, and some guy named Chatwin. They were originally made by small French bookbinders, whom may have been small in stature (as Meredith would like to believe), but were most likely small in the commercial sense of the word. It's really the journal that I have always wanted. Maybe my life will be better and my thoughts more profound now...yes, as sure as the Nike is fast they will!
I could go on, and I probably should seeing as this could possibly be the first and last entry in my blog. But, I will risk it, close my entry for the day, trusting that tomorrow will bring more fascinating thoughts for me to share with everyone and no one at the same time.
Till then, Au revoir! (that's french for goodbye...) ;)
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
The Gimp
for anyone who might read this, I just installed a free photo editing and graphic design program called "the gimp". I am experimenting and would love any constructive comments on what comes out of this process. thanks!
here's my first entry. thanks for watching!
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
