Earlier in the month, there was an op-ed in the New York Times entitled The Theology of Donald Trump, exploring Trump's faith and especially evangelical Christianity's response to him. It's interesting how we interpret behavior, which is obviously a complex process and rarely done objectively.
Another article came to my attention asserting how a covert video of Trump during a prayer session shows how faithful he is. Except his eyes are open the whole time, looking around, and to me, looking quite uncomfortable and appearing to want to know what's going on rather than really being present and moved by the Spirit. I don't know Trump personally, so I don't know what he's like personally or anything beyond his bombastic public appearance. So who knows...
Two months ago, I reviewed a book exploring the importance of evaluating presidential candidates' faith, broadly defined. The author, Stephen Mansfield, argues for asking questions about core values and where they derive from, seeing how those seem to match with the candidates' behavior. That seems to match the biblical verse about looking at the fruit of the Spirit.
Do we see the fruit of the Spirit demonstrated by Trump? A recent anti-Trump ad attempts to answer that question poignantly.
Oftentimes, it seems we tend to evaluate candidates' faith by their political position. In reality, faith can work its way through lives in many diverse ways. Christians can honestly and authentically come to completely different positions based on deep faith. That's one of the reasons I appreciate the Baptist core value of Soul Liberty.
Interestingly, I've heard very little debate about the faith of Hillary Clinton. Mansfield spends an entire chapter on her faith journey, which sounds quite authentic and applied, not superficial. But her faith and process is far more private than many.
Do we really know what to do with and how to even evaluate the faith of candidates? Should we? Is it possible?
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Monday, July 18, 2016
Monday, November 23, 2015
My First-hand Experience with Muslim Peacemakers
As we all know, there has been increasing ignorant, critical dialogue about Muslims being a threat to the foundation of American and Judeo-Christian society. I have seen and heard comments ranging from ISIS representing over 90% of all the world's Muslims to ISIS followers being the most serious and honest Muslims. People are regularly claiming that followers of Islam are fundamentally interested in divisiveness and contention.
During graduate school, I had the opportunity to work with a group of both Muslims and Christians from across the United States on an interfaith peacemaking effort. I literally had the opportunity to break bread with Muslims who took their faith very seriously, which led them to advocate for, raise awareness of, and build competency in interfaith peacemaking. Oh, and this effort was funded by a grant from the US Department of Justice.
This experience led to my dissertation, entitled Being a Peacemaker: A Qualitative Study on the Faith-Based Values of Exemplar Muslim and Christian Interfaith Peacemakers. This title should help emphasize that peacemaking can actually come from deeply-rooted serious faith, even from Islam.
There is good in the faith world. There are wonderful people doing amazing, important work. They have been doing it for decades, getting very little credit, but positively transforming people's lives. And both Muslims and Christians are doing it because of their faith. I believe the values of the people involved in these efforts are far more representative of the larger Muslim and Christian cultures; the perspectives are just not as well-known because the participants do their work quietly and humbly, in contrast to the work of groups like Westboro Baptist and ISIS.
Let's acknowledge the amazingly positive, pro-social transformative power Islam can provide, not just the destructiveness of minority extremism.
Wednesday, I'll explore the cost of security and self-preservation.
During graduate school, I had the opportunity to work with a group of both Muslims and Christians from across the United States on an interfaith peacemaking effort. I literally had the opportunity to break bread with Muslims who took their faith very seriously, which led them to advocate for, raise awareness of, and build competency in interfaith peacemaking. Oh, and this effort was funded by a grant from the US Department of Justice.
This experience led to my dissertation, entitled Being a Peacemaker: A Qualitative Study on the Faith-Based Values of Exemplar Muslim and Christian Interfaith Peacemakers. This title should help emphasize that peacemaking can actually come from deeply-rooted serious faith, even from Islam.
There is good in the faith world. There are wonderful people doing amazing, important work. They have been doing it for decades, getting very little credit, but positively transforming people's lives. And both Muslims and Christians are doing it because of their faith. I believe the values of the people involved in these efforts are far more representative of the larger Muslim and Christian cultures; the perspectives are just not as well-known because the participants do their work quietly and humbly, in contrast to the work of groups like Westboro Baptist and ISIS.
Let's acknowledge the amazingly positive, pro-social transformative power Islam can provide, not just the destructiveness of minority extremism.
Wednesday, I'll explore the cost of security and self-preservation.
Monday, April 6, 2015
In Memory of Dr. Robert H. Schuller
I have long thought that besides my immediate family, Schuller and his ministry has been the biggest impact to my theology, spirituality, and ministry. And that's, obviously, not a small thing to say. It's taken me a few days to put this together because it's hard to express even some of my thoughts and feelings in a coherent manner. Here's my attempt, probably more for my own processing than for anyone else.
-------
A brief personal history summary first, for context.
My knowledge of Schuller goes way back to childhood, before I became a Christian. My grandma would watch the Hour of Power, although I wouldn't pay much attention. My mom remembers my grandparents taking them to the drive in church when they were little and appreciating getting to stay in their pajamas for church. My grandma has a memorial brick in the newest campus building. It essentially functions as her memorial location for me.
My awareness of his ministry increased in high school after I became a Christian, but it was really my first year in college at UC Berkeley that made things connect. Going from a little mountain town to living in Berkeley was a culture shock, to say the least. And finding a church wasn't easy. I started receiving Schuller's daily email devotions, which helped keep me motivated, hope-filled, and focused on my priorities and central identity as a Christian in the midst of a lot of worldview challenge. Berkeley culture doesn't confront worldview in a kind way, but one of the things that was central to Schuller's approach and theology was being welcoming and inclusive, finding common elements of agreement among differences in worldview in order to improve the world. This helped give me strength and change my distaste for Berkeley's aggressive cynicism into something incredibly defining in my life, building a more dynamic, rich faith. When I was asked to speak about my experience in Berkeley for graduation at my church, I quoted one of Schuller's pithy sayings to represent how he helped me keep hope and tenacity.
When I moved back to Southern California for my doctorate, I heard about a new college/young adult ministry starting at the Crystal Cathedral, only about 45 minutes from where I lived, and I thought no harm in trying it out. In fact, I'd love to be able to actually be a part of that congregation. There, I met someone who would soon become a great friend, Bobby Schuller (grandson of Robert H. and now lead pastor of Shepherd's Grove and Hour of Power). Over the next few years, I helped build The Gathering, a emerging church-inspired "church-within-a-church" and even came on staff of the Cathedral for The Gathering. Obviously, Schuller's theology and intergenerational influence was felt throughout our work.
We at The Gathering had a very different style, but the foundational stance of hope and encouragement that Schuller promoted was pervasive and drew people who had been hurt by other institutional churches (frankly, not unlike some of Schuller's then-unconventional approaches). Eventually I moved out of the area and so had to find a more local congregation.
Suffice it to say that Schuller's ministry and my life have crossed paths in deep, meaningful ways for most of life.
-------
With that context, these are some reflections on how his ministerial approach and theology have impacted me.
While criticisms have been and will continue to be made about the Crystal Cathedral campus due to opulence, extravagance wasn't really the goal. Rather, Schuller's first intent around unique church structures was practical, to be inclusive of those who couldn't be a part of a traditional congregation. Guideposts' memorial is a good summary of much of his original ministerial intent. Schuller's point was to create a physical space that would help people feel a sense of holiness and grandness of God, especially via connecting to the natural world. For me, that's exactly what I felt around the campus. I loved spending hours studying or just meditating in the gardens. The stairs at top of the Tower of Hope, just outside the Chapel in the Sky, was my favorite place on the whole campus because of its balance of connecting with the natural world, feeling close to God, while also looking out over the community and remembering the mission of being in the world. My wife and I had our first kiss, got engaged, and were married on the Cathedral campus. My bachelor "party" was spent walking around the campus with my best man having some good, reflective conversations. So I have good memories there even apart from the relationships built via The Gathering. I'm regularly saddened by the fact that I feel like I have to apologize for misunderstandings of intent around the grounds. But personally, Schuller's architectural efforts help me reconnect to God whenever I roam the campus. I see this nonverbal piece of his message particularly influence my incarnational theology that is so central to my faith.
In hindsight, I can see so many impacts Schuller's theology and approach have made on me. His valuing of psychology likely had some influence on my profession, and I know his regular referencing of Viktor Frankl particularly triggered my interest in studying Frankl's work, which continues to be the foundation for my psychological worldview. I would regularly cite Schuller in my graduate school papers reflecting on my worldview and theology. His words and thoughts were gateway into deeper theological exploration and reflection for me.
A fundamental positive, encouraging theological stance is central to my theology, and I doubt that's coincidental. I'm sure his approach influenced me not only directly, but also via my grandparents and mom. This was and is a major distinction of Schuller's approach, which was often controversial. Central to my ministry and passion is helping people see and experience God as loving and accepting. Schuller helped give shape, theology, and purpose to this focus. A few recent articles have quoted him from a Christianity Today interview, saying, “I don’t think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence, counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and un-Christian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.” There are many in the world who would consider this heresy. However, I increasingly agree with Schuller completely. Most of the greatest criticisms of Christianity and religion are from those who believe in the unbiblical wrathful God supporting retributive justice. Schuller has helped rescue millions from this spiritually and psychologically damaging perspective.
Many people don't realize Schuller's contributions to international dialogue and building bridges across groups. He helped open dialogue with the USSR (he was the first Christian to be on TV there, and Gorbachev was even a guest on the Hour of Power...). His son, Robert A. Schuller, has continued these efforts, engaging in regular interfaith peacemaking efforts. I believe his efforts to find peace among and value in diverse spiritualities influenced my ability and value of promoting the same. My dissertation was focused on exemplar Muslim and Christian interfaith peacemakers. As chair of the spirituality subcommittee at a public department of behavioral health, a lot of my efforts to open inclusion of spirituality are focused on reminding/teaching people that interfaith work can not only function, but it can be powerful, beneficial, and respectful. Schuller never abandoned, minimized, or apologized for his Christian faith in this interactions. Rather, he exemplified that living as a follower of Christ was the cause for these efforts.
Despite whatever fair or unfair criticisms people may have of him, at his heart, Schuller cared about people. He loved his family deeply and well (and I know they loved him back). He wanted to bring the hope of Christ to a hurting world. He helped reshape the structure of church in a way that met people where they were at in a new culture. Even Christianity Today recognized this influence in their tribute. He helped build cultural and religious bridges to build a better world. His methods may seem cheesy and dated to us now, but they were revolutionary and effective at the time.
We could do well to remember and continue the intent of reaching those ostracized by churches and broken Christianity in creative, hope-filled, and life-giving ways. Schuller's message was one of grace and love, and I will forever treasure him for it.
Monday, March 31, 2014
When Do We Engage in Debate?
Once again, great debate is raging in Christendom, casting judgment on who's in and who's out of Christ's love. Much text has been spilled on both sides of the World Vision debate. And I'm not sure much good is coming of the debate itself (likely because it's the equivalent of much yelling). My wife wrote a wonderful response (and I'm quite proud of her eloquence--I'm confident I wouldn't have had that much grace at the time).
As we saw people cite clobber verses that were completely decontextualized, I had an urge to argue their poor hermeneutics, history, and theology. My wife thought no good would come of it, as I wouldn't change their minds.
She's right--no amount of discussion, debate, or arguing will change the minds of people doing the talking. But can it impact those who are listening?
I've been in situations before when I felt the need to offer another opinion, not even necessarily to change the minds of anyone, but to raise awareness that people have honest disagreement and that other conclusions are possible. Last week, I asked if people really always reject the living God when they reject an angry, wrathful God. The problem is that often the only God some people have been told about is that one, narrow view. Without another option, many people feel like they lose all faith by changing their views.
In a similar fashion, if people believe the only way to be a Christian is one particular theological construct, when they have a concern with that perspective, then they either ignore their own reactions (which is problematic in many ways) or they feel like they have to abandon their faith completely. That is not fair (nor theologically accurate to most of Christendom) and only leads to more crises of faith rather than the building up of the body of Christ.
I loved World Vision's initial letter because it beautifully preached the centrality of love and unity in the Gospel. Their bullied retraction was the opposite, overemphasizing one issue that despite what they said, is not central nor fundamental to the Christian faith and never has been (except in a few minority denominations in the past decade).
Will we change the minds of those who publicly decried World Vision's grace? No. But if we stay silent and only allow Pharisaical voices to reign without dissent, then what message are we sending? The method is important, and there are many who responded in a much more appropriate and grace-filled way than I ever could.
But when is staying silent in the face of disagreement the best option? We see both responses from Jesus: from knocking over tables in the temple court to acting rather non-responsive in the face of crucifixion. As with most things, there is likely no perfect rule or formula. Context matters. But I'm not sure silence is always the best policy...
As we saw people cite clobber verses that were completely decontextualized, I had an urge to argue their poor hermeneutics, history, and theology. My wife thought no good would come of it, as I wouldn't change their minds.
She's right--no amount of discussion, debate, or arguing will change the minds of people doing the talking. But can it impact those who are listening?
I've been in situations before when I felt the need to offer another opinion, not even necessarily to change the minds of anyone, but to raise awareness that people have honest disagreement and that other conclusions are possible. Last week, I asked if people really always reject the living God when they reject an angry, wrathful God. The problem is that often the only God some people have been told about is that one, narrow view. Without another option, many people feel like they lose all faith by changing their views.
In a similar fashion, if people believe the only way to be a Christian is one particular theological construct, when they have a concern with that perspective, then they either ignore their own reactions (which is problematic in many ways) or they feel like they have to abandon their faith completely. That is not fair (nor theologically accurate to most of Christendom) and only leads to more crises of faith rather than the building up of the body of Christ.
I loved World Vision's initial letter because it beautifully preached the centrality of love and unity in the Gospel. Their bullied retraction was the opposite, overemphasizing one issue that despite what they said, is not central nor fundamental to the Christian faith and never has been (except in a few minority denominations in the past decade).
Will we change the minds of those who publicly decried World Vision's grace? No. But if we stay silent and only allow Pharisaical voices to reign without dissent, then what message are we sending? The method is important, and there are many who responded in a much more appropriate and grace-filled way than I ever could.
But when is staying silent in the face of disagreement the best option? We see both responses from Jesus: from knocking over tables in the temple court to acting rather non-responsive in the face of crucifixion. As with most things, there is likely no perfect rule or formula. Context matters. But I'm not sure silence is always the best policy...
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Guest Post: Ashamed of Christian Intolerance
This is a guest post from my wife, who so eloquently commented on the World Vision debacle.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I never post opinions about hot-button issues, but I’m so upset and ashamed with the way that some of my fellow Christians have been representing my faith lately that it’s really bugging me. My heart is hurting. Prepare to witness a rare Laci rant.
Really?!? Thousands of Christians suddenly pulling funds that go to a STARVING CHILD because they don’t want gay Christians in a committed relationship working to help feed that child?!?? I’m embarrassed that World Vision was essentially bullied into reversing their (brave) policy. And that’s exactly what it was, bullying...threats of pulling funding unless they explicitly and publicly called out homosexuality as a sin, and said you can't work there if you disagree. Why did it have to go there? This is not about whether being gay is right or wrong. People missed the point completely. You can think it’s a sin and be a Christian, and you can think it’s not our place to judge and STILL be a Christian. That’s a whole separate issue that I’m not discussing here, it’s not relevant. They were not saying it was right or wrong, they were saying “let’s not be so divisive. There’s been a lot of hurt caused by this debate...we want to be an example in working together despite our differences and not discriminating.” Sexuality is not central to our faith, as much as many seem to think it is the be all end all. Very little of the Bible is devoted to that issue; far more is devoted to admonishing us to love others. Again and again. To forgive others. To love God. But that message gets lost in the stream of debates. So many are focusing on it, freaking out as if your view on it determines if you’re going to heaven or not, or that if gay marriage is allowed, it means heterosexual marriage is being torn apart or diminished. That’s just silly. My personal relationship with Jesus, as well as my relationship with my husband, is not threatened by anyone else’s relationship with whoever they love. And I believe that God cares far more about how I treat my fellow human beings than what I think about gay people. Why is this the main issue Christians today think they need to fight for?!? Why not focus on the things that really matter?
World Vision stated it so well in their first statement about it when they said “"Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues," he said. "It also allows us to treat all of our employees the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage." Bravo! Many denominations and respected Christian leaders are divided on that issue, so they decided it was best to not formally take a side and instead try and unite Christians to work together despite their differences. There are many other issues that are not anywhere close to being the difference between salvation or not. (Imagine their job interviews if it continues like this...”Were you baptized by dunking or sprinkling? Does your church use a rock guitar in their worship service? Yes? Oh, sorry, guess you can’t work here, our policy says you’re not a real Christian, so you’re not fit to distribute food to the hungry.”) World Vision also has stated they will not take a formal stance on things like divorce/remarriage, evolution or female pastors, as it should be...there’s disagreement on those, and Christians on both sides of the issue that both have convincing arguments. They know that they are a company that represents Christianity as a whole, not one particular view of Christianity, and that ultimately, those issues should be discussed at a church level. It’s not like they are God handing down a declaration of what is counted as Christianity. We all like to think that only our denomination is the right one with all the answers, but it's simply not true.
But instead of inspiring unity World Vision was shown that fear of homosexuality outweighs a lot of Christian’s desires to help the poor and hungry. They just couldn’t support an organization that might work alongside those that Jesus himself would probably welcome. I feel like homosexuals are the lepers of today...people who Christians are afraid to touch, afraid to show compassion to for fear of getting “infected.” Sometimes I’m outraged at how so many Christians put “calling out sin” above “love your neighbor.” It’s just Not. As. Important. Telling someone they’re a sinner rarely endears them to Christianity. We all know that already. But I saw a lot of formerly skeptical atheists give a nod to World Vision’s initial decision and how they were impressed at their openness. I bet they’re doubly turned away now, hearing the new decision. How many of those who might have embraced Jesus are now forever hardened against the church because of how they are seeing Christians behave in this situation? We claim to be loving and then we go and abandon an already struggling child because our ideas were challenged. It saddened me greatly hearing World Vision recant something that just yesterday I viewed as a step in the right direction of loving and recognizing our fellow human beings the way we are supposed to as Christians.
I have to restate, this is not a debate about whether being gay is a sin or not. I’m not going there, let’s not debate that. It is the fact that Christians were so fast to immediately drop over 2,000 children that they sponsored just because World Vision said they would not take a hard stance. Church leaders even told their members to pull their funds. That is wrong on every level. We should be ashamed that the world is seeing Christians in that light. If you disagree with the policy that much, fine, at least finish out the year and don’t renew again, go support another charitable organization. But don’t abruptly stop supporting someone who relies on you, in a spoiled fit to prove that you hold the power.
I think I’m going to go sponsor a child now. If you agree with me that Christianity is more than political stances and religious rules, please consider doing the same.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
The Priesthood of a Physical Church @KeithGiles
Keith Giles, an organic/house church advocate who offers all of his books for free electronically, recently released This is My Body: Ekklesia as God Intended. First off, this book is a very easy read. The way Giles separates the chapters makes it feel like you are moving the book quickly and easily.
The book itself is intended to examine a biblical basis for what the institutional church and worldwide Church should look like. Long story short, Giles provides a wonderful, well-thought-out argument for the priesthood of all believers in a way that is accessible to most people (rather than heavy theological language). He notes important implications for what that looks like institutionally, including the lack of hierarchy. One of my deep spiritual/ecclesiastical values is an egalitarian organization, so I really appreciate the many angles Giles approaches this, from the role of pastor to the relevance of a "spiritual covering." There are so many wonderful things he says that I could elaborate on, but that would take forever and probably be redundant with his work. :)
There were a couple of parts that I struggled with. At one point, Giles mentions that he so dislikes it when churches raise so much money to put into creating or buying buildings rather than going to people. His rationale for this is wonderful, and I agree. When I was an elder at The Gathering, we talked about ways to make sure all of our income would go back out, which is what Giles' community succeeds at.
At the same time, I can and have seen the value of larger communities (Giles argues for very small groups) and church campuses. I grew up in small church communities and am currently drawn to the philosophy of house/organic churches. At the same time, I have been a part of some very large congregations lately. Particularly as one has been in the news lately in part because of poor financial planning related to their building, I have seen first-hand how much time, energy, and money goes into buying and maintaining church property. A lot of time, energy, and money that could go into people.
At the same time, my wife and I have come to appreciate the opportunities available with a larger congregation. While a lot of money may flow into administrative and building costs, these communities provide a lot of services to the world around them that smaller groups could not do. While the churches themselves may spend less on administration and building if they were small and without a building, then other organizations and businesses would have to pick up the slack on service. This might not happen at all. When it does, it usually occurs with non-profits, who also will often rely on donations and have the same administrative and building costs as churches. They frequently have more, as churches can often more easily be staffed by volunteers. In the end, more money may reach people if the institutional church does the work and includes the overhead. I get and agree with Giles' philosophy, but practically, biblical times were quite different than modern times when it comes to interpersonal service.
Further, church buildings can be services in themselves. While I hate the waste of space many sanctuaries are, many well-planned buildings can and are used for many activities and offered to the community to use. Further, appropriately thought-out buildings can teach spiritual stories and inspire people to go out and serve more. Yes, it is difficult to watch tens of millions of dollars go into a new building when people are starving. Yet what is the cost if that new building becomes a refuge for people to relax and become rejuvenated to then go out and help those starving neighbors? While I am very much a utilitarian with many things, I have come to value the importance of space that is life-giving. I've been to more utilitarian church buildings and those that are intended to be a sanctuary. I am much more open to people after spending time in the latter.
The other part I struggled with was a section on women leaders. Giles argues for the equality of women in the church with some excellent arguments. But then he ends by stating, "However, the authority to rebuke or confront a believer caught in sin seems to rest on those male elders and overseers who were recognized as having a Fatherly position within the Body" (p. 142). This statement stood out in stark contrast to the rest of this section and his book, which all provided examples and support for his claims. While the complementarian/egalitarian debate was not really the issue here, this statement just seemed unsupported.
While I spent most of my time here on the parts I did not fully agree with, they were actually relatively minor parts of the book. For anyone interested in organic church models and thoughts on hierarchy in ecclesiology, I highly recommend this book.
The book itself is intended to examine a biblical basis for what the institutional church and worldwide Church should look like. Long story short, Giles provides a wonderful, well-thought-out argument for the priesthood of all believers in a way that is accessible to most people (rather than heavy theological language). He notes important implications for what that looks like institutionally, including the lack of hierarchy. One of my deep spiritual/ecclesiastical values is an egalitarian organization, so I really appreciate the many angles Giles approaches this, from the role of pastor to the relevance of a "spiritual covering." There are so many wonderful things he says that I could elaborate on, but that would take forever and probably be redundant with his work. :)
There were a couple of parts that I struggled with. At one point, Giles mentions that he so dislikes it when churches raise so much money to put into creating or buying buildings rather than going to people. His rationale for this is wonderful, and I agree. When I was an elder at The Gathering, we talked about ways to make sure all of our income would go back out, which is what Giles' community succeeds at.
At the same time, I can and have seen the value of larger communities (Giles argues for very small groups) and church campuses. I grew up in small church communities and am currently drawn to the philosophy of house/organic churches. At the same time, I have been a part of some very large congregations lately. Particularly as one has been in the news lately in part because of poor financial planning related to their building, I have seen first-hand how much time, energy, and money goes into buying and maintaining church property. A lot of time, energy, and money that could go into people.
At the same time, my wife and I have come to appreciate the opportunities available with a larger congregation. While a lot of money may flow into administrative and building costs, these communities provide a lot of services to the world around them that smaller groups could not do. While the churches themselves may spend less on administration and building if they were small and without a building, then other organizations and businesses would have to pick up the slack on service. This might not happen at all. When it does, it usually occurs with non-profits, who also will often rely on donations and have the same administrative and building costs as churches. They frequently have more, as churches can often more easily be staffed by volunteers. In the end, more money may reach people if the institutional church does the work and includes the overhead. I get and agree with Giles' philosophy, but practically, biblical times were quite different than modern times when it comes to interpersonal service.
Further, church buildings can be services in themselves. While I hate the waste of space many sanctuaries are, many well-planned buildings can and are used for many activities and offered to the community to use. Further, appropriately thought-out buildings can teach spiritual stories and inspire people to go out and serve more. Yes, it is difficult to watch tens of millions of dollars go into a new building when people are starving. Yet what is the cost if that new building becomes a refuge for people to relax and become rejuvenated to then go out and help those starving neighbors? While I am very much a utilitarian with many things, I have come to value the importance of space that is life-giving. I've been to more utilitarian church buildings and those that are intended to be a sanctuary. I am much more open to people after spending time in the latter.
The other part I struggled with was a section on women leaders. Giles argues for the equality of women in the church with some excellent arguments. But then he ends by stating, "However, the authority to rebuke or confront a believer caught in sin seems to rest on those male elders and overseers who were recognized as having a Fatherly position within the Body" (p. 142). This statement stood out in stark contrast to the rest of this section and his book, which all provided examples and support for his claims. While the complementarian/egalitarian debate was not really the issue here, this statement just seemed unsupported.
While I spent most of my time here on the parts I did not fully agree with, they were actually relatively minor parts of the book. For anyone interested in organic church models and thoughts on hierarchy in ecclesiology, I highly recommend this book.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Why did you become a Christian?
Over the past several months of conversations and observing spiritual dialogues, one of the things I've become aware of (in part thanks to my wife's observations) is that the reasons people became Christians makes a big difference on their current faith and how they approach faith challenges. This may not be a big surprise, but I've never heard anyone talk about the relationship.
I became a Christian on Palm Sunday my freshman year of high school. It was a quiet decision during youth group. I was a bit embarrassed. I know I didn't realize the full weight of the decision until I built my relationship with Christ. I don't remember all the details, but I know I finally believed God was real in Christ. His story made life make sense, and I wanted a relationship with him.
My decision didn't have to do with eternity. I don't recall Heaven and Hell being on my mind at all. Nor was doctrine or the Bible. It was simply wanting to know this God who structured the world and gave meaning to life.
I think that's why I'm so able to hold a lot of my beliefs relatively loosely. I don't need to have a clear definition of who is going to Heaven and who to Hell to feel secure in my faith because that's not a motivator for me. I also don't need to defend the Bible or particular doctrinal issues because they really don't affect my relationship with Christ.
Of course, we could argue that if you don't believe in the Trinity, the Christ with whom you think you have a relationship is not real. There is some truth to that. Yet, God still pursues us. And our God image develops over time and through relationship. I didn't have a fully accurate picture of my wife when I married her. I still don't. But it develops over time and that doesn't diminish the reality and power of our relationship.
What's your story? Do you see that affecting how you deal with questions, doubt, and controversy?
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Transformation and Sin
I frequently hear a lot of talk about sin. Mostly about condemning sin and needing to focus on reducing sin in our lives. Is reducing sin a good thing? Absolutely. But I've come to realize that all the talk about sin reduction reminds me of my battle with the emphasis on symptom reduction in the psychology world.
Christianity and psychology are about a whole lot more than inappropriate behavior. Sure, some people like focusing just on those things. In some ways, such a concrete focus is easier because it can clearly let us know if what we're doing is working or not.
But just as I did not go into the field of psychology to reduce symptoms, I did not accept a relationship with Christ to reduce sin. I pursued both to become transformed and help other become transformed.
In order to become transformed, we do usually need to change some of our behavior. But that is simply a means to an end. We need to address aspects of our lives that impede transformation. Yet we need to keep our eyes on the ultimate goal of being like Christ, not just in behavior, but in mind, body, and spirit.
We also need to remember Paul's words in Romans 8:12-17 that we are no longer slaves to sin nor under any obligation to sin. Yet we frequently believe the lie that we are defined by sin. As John Eldredge so eloquently states in Wild at Heart:
We often believe a lie that Jesus has not redeemed us, our hearts, our minds, and our behavior. We fight with ourselves to change something and then also believe we have no hope of changing it because we are irreversibly evil.
Without God, little will change. With God, everything will change. However, that does not mean our circumstances, moods, and even all behavior will change. What I have found is that often God leaves those things to help further develop our spirit and character.
Character doesn't mean perfection. It's how we respond to life, even when those responses aren't perfect.
We should continually strive to put on the character of Christ, as Dallas Willard puts it. We should also strive to refine our behavior, attitudes, and moods. Our spiritual disciplines can help with this. So can psychotherapy. Yet if all we focus on is reducing or removing a certain misdeed, we miss the bigger picture of true transformation. And that might be the biggest sin and tragedy of all.
Christianity and psychology are about a whole lot more than inappropriate behavior. Sure, some people like focusing just on those things. In some ways, such a concrete focus is easier because it can clearly let us know if what we're doing is working or not.
But just as I did not go into the field of psychology to reduce symptoms, I did not accept a relationship with Christ to reduce sin. I pursued both to become transformed and help other become transformed.
In order to become transformed, we do usually need to change some of our behavior. But that is simply a means to an end. We need to address aspects of our lives that impede transformation. Yet we need to keep our eyes on the ultimate goal of being like Christ, not just in behavior, but in mind, body, and spirit.
We also need to remember Paul's words in Romans 8:12-17 that we are no longer slaves to sin nor under any obligation to sin. Yet we frequently believe the lie that we are defined by sin. As John Eldredge so eloquently states in Wild at Heart:
You are not your sin; sin is no longer the truest thing about the man who has come into union with Jesus. Your heart is good. "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you" (Ezek. 36:26). The Big Lie in the church today is that you are nothing more than "a sinner saved by grace." You are a lot more than that. You are a new creation in Christ. The New Testament calls you a saint, a holy one, a son of God. In the core of your being you are a good man. Yes, there is a war within us, but it is a civil war. The battle is not between us and God; no, there is a traitor within us who wars against our true heart fighting alongside the Spirit of God in us:
A new power is in operation. The Spirit of life in Christ, like a strong wind, has magnificently cleared the air, freeing you from a fated lifetime of brutal tyranny at the hands of sin and death . . . Anyone, of course, who has not welcomed this invisible but clearly present God, the Spirit of Christ, won't know what we're talking about. But for you who welcome him, in whom he dwells . . . if the alive-and-present God who raised Jesus from the dead moves into your life, he'll do the same thing in you that he did in Jesus . . . When God lives and breathes in you (and he does, as surely as he did in Jesus), you are delivered from that dead life. (Rom. 8:2, 9-11 The Message)
The real you is on the side of God against the false self. Knowing this makes all the difference in the world. The man who wants to live valiantly will lose heart quickly if he believes that his heart is nothing but sin. Why fight? (p. 144-145)
We often believe a lie that Jesus has not redeemed us, our hearts, our minds, and our behavior. We fight with ourselves to change something and then also believe we have no hope of changing it because we are irreversibly evil.
Without God, little will change. With God, everything will change. However, that does not mean our circumstances, moods, and even all behavior will change. What I have found is that often God leaves those things to help further develop our spirit and character.
Character doesn't mean perfection. It's how we respond to life, even when those responses aren't perfect.
We should continually strive to put on the character of Christ, as Dallas Willard puts it. We should also strive to refine our behavior, attitudes, and moods. Our spiritual disciplines can help with this. So can psychotherapy. Yet if all we focus on is reducing or removing a certain misdeed, we miss the bigger picture of true transformation. And that might be the biggest sin and tragedy of all.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Big Tent Christianity eBook @bigtentx
A few months ago, I participated in the Big Tent Christianity synchroblog. After that, the organizers compiled all of the participants' posts (including mine) into an eBook. I realized I never shared that on this blog, but if you liked to see it (for free), download it! :)
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Sin of Holiness
According to Richard Foster in Streams of Living Water, the holiness stream is a focus on the virtuous life, as in right living and purity from sin. This perspective develops from the Wesleyan holiness movement that focuses on sanctification by avoiding sin and being morally pure.
Is this perspective in the Bible. Absolutely. God wants us to avoid sin. However, being morally pure does not guarantee that we are close with God. Just read the Gospels regarding the Pharisees and Paul's writings.
Being holy is not the same as being morally pure. Sacred is a better synonym with holy.
To be holy or sacred is to be made special for God. We can be set apart by being morally pure. However, God, through Christ, makes us holy. Regardless of our behavior.
As I also discussed in yesterday's post on confession, we often focus too much on sin and not enough on moving closer to God. There, of course, is a balance, as sin and God don't do well together. However, as Christ did many times on earth, he will also come to us in the midst of sin. And frankly, that's when we experience God the most. Christ physically came to those who were sinning. He didn't come to those who were pure.
Of course that doesn't mean we should sin in order to be with God. However, in many attempts to remain pure, we often blind ourselves to experiencing God, as was my experiencing with fasting. As we seek to do things for God, we often forget to be with God. While we do need to combat sin and move toward moral purity, this is something that is impossible in this world. And it's not the primary goal of the Gospel or what God wants, in my opinion. He wants a relationship with us. And battling sin can get in the way of that. If we are always beating ourselves up in order to repent, we are ignoring God's redemption and therefore ignoring God.
So I think in our aim to be holy we may actually lose our holiness by participating in life with God less.
Is this perspective in the Bible. Absolutely. God wants us to avoid sin. However, being morally pure does not guarantee that we are close with God. Just read the Gospels regarding the Pharisees and Paul's writings.
Being holy is not the same as being morally pure. Sacred is a better synonym with holy.
To be holy or sacred is to be made special for God. We can be set apart by being morally pure. However, God, through Christ, makes us holy. Regardless of our behavior.
As I also discussed in yesterday's post on confession, we often focus too much on sin and not enough on moving closer to God. There, of course, is a balance, as sin and God don't do well together. However, as Christ did many times on earth, he will also come to us in the midst of sin. And frankly, that's when we experience God the most. Christ physically came to those who were sinning. He didn't come to those who were pure.
Of course that doesn't mean we should sin in order to be with God. However, in many attempts to remain pure, we often blind ourselves to experiencing God, as was my experiencing with fasting. As we seek to do things for God, we often forget to be with God. While we do need to combat sin and move toward moral purity, this is something that is impossible in this world. And it's not the primary goal of the Gospel or what God wants, in my opinion. He wants a relationship with us. And battling sin can get in the way of that. If we are always beating ourselves up in order to repent, we are ignoring God's redemption and therefore ignoring God.
So I think in our aim to be holy we may actually lose our holiness by participating in life with God less.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Big Tent Christianity
Next month, there is a conference called Big Tent Christianity occurring in North Carolina (no, I don't have enough money to go :) ). I'm participating in part of a synchroblog as a part of that conference. The theme for the synchroblog is:
When I hear "big tent Christianity," I think back to Archbishop of Split (Spalato) Marco Antonio de Dominis' phrase, "in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity." There's a few ways that is translated, but this is the essence of the quote.
I think this should be a motto for all Christians in dealing with others. There are essential ideas in which we should be unified. However, I think there are really only a few absolute essentials (i.e. God exists and Jesus is our Savior) that truly define Christianity. Much else truly are nonessentials. Not that there are not absolutes, but we also cannot know them all because of the fallibility of humanity. And even when we do, they are not salvific issues (in my opinion). We need to be able to accept differences in opinion about these issues. We may need separate communities because differences of opinion can definitely impact the way a community operates. However, as a friend of mine recently said, we need to remember that we're all on the same team.
The most important part of that quote to me is the last part: "in all things charity." Even the essentials should be questioned in order to make sure they are valid and in order for people to truly understand them. Further, we are all in different places in the journey of understanding and faith. We need to have grace for each other (and ourselves) in that process.
However, I think a big part of charity is not having arrogance. We need to not instantly question the validity of each other's faith because of disagreements (even over essentials). One of the things I've discovered is that a lot of disagreeing parties are not as different as they think. They problems occur because they use different language, so they are not communicating clearly.
Christianity should be a place where people can explore themselves, God, and Truth in a safe place. That necessitates charity. It's a hard thing to do, and no one will do it perfectly, but I'd like to see that happen more and more.
What does “big tent Christianity” mean to you? What does it look like in your context? What are your hopes and dreams for the Church?
When I hear "big tent Christianity," I think back to Archbishop of Split (Spalato) Marco Antonio de Dominis' phrase, "in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity." There's a few ways that is translated, but this is the essence of the quote.
I think this should be a motto for all Christians in dealing with others. There are essential ideas in which we should be unified. However, I think there are really only a few absolute essentials (i.e. God exists and Jesus is our Savior) that truly define Christianity. Much else truly are nonessentials. Not that there are not absolutes, but we also cannot know them all because of the fallibility of humanity. And even when we do, they are not salvific issues (in my opinion). We need to be able to accept differences in opinion about these issues. We may need separate communities because differences of opinion can definitely impact the way a community operates. However, as a friend of mine recently said, we need to remember that we're all on the same team.
The most important part of that quote to me is the last part: "in all things charity." Even the essentials should be questioned in order to make sure they are valid and in order for people to truly understand them. Further, we are all in different places in the journey of understanding and faith. We need to have grace for each other (and ourselves) in that process.
However, I think a big part of charity is not having arrogance. We need to not instantly question the validity of each other's faith because of disagreements (even over essentials). One of the things I've discovered is that a lot of disagreeing parties are not as different as they think. They problems occur because they use different language, so they are not communicating clearly.
Christianity should be a place where people can explore themselves, God, and Truth in a safe place. That necessitates charity. It's a hard thing to do, and no one will do it perfectly, but I'd like to see that happen more and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)