Continuing my series on reflections on meaning, I want to consider the idea of tradition. Last week, I talked about the limited value I've increasingly seen in church services. I've reflected before that I have trouble understanding why people continue singing songs that sound like funeral dirges with affect that matches. Extreme structure and routine that is devoid of passion just doesn't strike me as compelling.
However, what seems to be a driving force for many is tradition. In various settings, I've heard people talk about being motivated to engage in an activity that others have done for decades, centuries, or millennia. Sometimes it's about doing the same thing others are doing at the same time around the globe. I find the latter more compelling because it emphasizes global unity, which is significant in many ways.
For one reason or another, I just have never been able to experience meaning or emotion connected to tradition. I've come to really appreciate some of the more historical images and processes, but not because of tradition; because of knowing that each element of an icon is intentionally placed and means something. But structuring a service or singing a particular song because others have done it before us just isn't compelling to me.
Maybe it goes back to my sense of meaning needing a relational and/or transformational quality. I just don't see either happening attached to tradition for the sake of tradition. That doesn't mean tradition is bad, but sometimes we can get too rigidly attached to it because that's how we've always done it. Perhaps there's a more effective or meaningful way...
Showing posts with label Tradition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tradition. Show all posts
Monday, September 1, 2014
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Deconstruction Does Not Mean Lack of Truth @IgniterMedia
This is a wonderful video by Igniter Media about some of the nativity myths. Watch through to the end because it really emphasizes one of the central points of this blog: Getting rid of man-made traditions and ideas does not get rid of the Truth of Christ. HT Matt Stone.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
The Selfish Gospel @9MarksOnline @nextchristians @christianaudio @caReviewers
The latest book I got to review for christianaudio's reviewer program (meaning I received a complimentary copy) was Greg Gilbert's What is the Gospel? This book is actually part of a series from 9marks, going in-depth about what that organization considers to be the nine marks of a healthy church, as argued by Mark Dever.
I actually finished this audiobook over a week ago, but I didn't feel any urge to get a review out quickly because I really didn't care for the book. I was also trying to figure out good ways to positively engage with it.
The purpose of this tome is to answer the question of the title: What is the Gospel? Gilbert makes the excellent point that Christians are fragmented in our definitions of what the Gospel is. While I see that (generally) more as an element of different people emphasizing different aspects of the Gospel, Gilbert seems to almost take offense that there is not a simple, unified definition. His writing seems to question the salvation of people who do not understand the Gospel in the same way he does of Penal Substitutionary Atonement as paramount.
He begins the book by arguing that the Gospel is larger than most people make it to be, a statement with which I agree. However, he quickly simplifies it to issues of salvation. I find it somewhat interesting that his book was offered to review at the same time as The Next Christians, which I loved. The latter does a much better job at explaining how the Gospel is much more than simply salvation from Hell.
In any case, I think I found some of the reasons I had problems with Gilbert's text. First of all, he states that as Christians, we value the Bible as infallible and inerrant, thus taking a literal view. This is a big theological assertion, as the majority of Christendom does not view Scripture as both infallible and inerrant. This is an example of how Gilbert implies that if one does not interpret Scripture the same way he does, that individual is not actually a Christian. There are people who take this view. I am not one of them and feel very strongly about this.
This approach to Scripture shapes all of his interpretations, which is where my problems begin. With a literal view, people often approach the Bible from a "plain meaning" perspective, assuming they understand it from a simple reading. Therefore, explanation is not often needed. Gilbert exemplifies this approach by providing evidence for his statements by simply stating, "see Revelation," without additional explanation.
While he makes some good points about the Gospel, this approach of simply citing Scripture without providing his interpretation of it makes his arguments unsupported, in my view. Further, I simply disagree with his reading of many elements of Scripture because I do not approach the Bible as inerrant.
I believe many other things should be considered to help us understand the Bible, including tradition, intuition, science, etc. These things should not supersede the Bible, but they are relevant, as the Bible is not always clear. Gilbert, however, argues that relying on tradition, intuition, etc. for truths, leads to unanswered questions. And he indicates that unanswered questions are unacceptable. This is an area with which I strongly disagree. I think God gives us many unanswered questions, and that is not a problem. In fact, it creates a rich space for growth. And ironically, Gilbert uses the Bible the same way the people he criticizes use tradition and intuition--just accepting what they have been told and not critically engaging it to find Truth.
One of the things Gilbert frequently says is that the Good News of the Bible is that we can be rescued (I agree). However, he says, that unless we know we need to be rescued, it's not good news. So we need to emphasize the sinful, wicked nature of people to point out how depraved they are. I disagree with this. Most people I know actually know very well how much they need help. They don't need others reminding them. That just makes things worse. And sometimes the way we find out we need help is by getting the help and getting out of the situation.
In any case, Gilbert seems to emphasize how we need to know how the Gospel is Good News for me. Not for other people. For me. There's a selfish feel to it, in my opinion. In many ways, he presents what Gabe Lyons describes in The Next Christians as a view of doing good for the most people rather than for all people. Jesus and the Gospel definitely focus on emphasizing good for all people, not just a few. While only a few may take advantage of it, they do not only offer it to those few.
So therefore, cultural change is a powerful thing that is very holy and central to the Gospel. Gilbert argues that cultural transformation is not part of the Gospel. However, the way he describes it seems to be more related to Lyons' description of cultural Christians, those who take Christ in-name-only and look like the culture. In contrast, the restorers are people who are deeply connected to Christ and want to restore the world and the culture to God's hope and dream for the world in a way that will benefit all people. That's a powerful and True Gospel.
I actually finished this audiobook over a week ago, but I didn't feel any urge to get a review out quickly because I really didn't care for the book. I was also trying to figure out good ways to positively engage with it.
The purpose of this tome is to answer the question of the title: What is the Gospel? Gilbert makes the excellent point that Christians are fragmented in our definitions of what the Gospel is. While I see that (generally) more as an element of different people emphasizing different aspects of the Gospel, Gilbert seems to almost take offense that there is not a simple, unified definition. His writing seems to question the salvation of people who do not understand the Gospel in the same way he does of Penal Substitutionary Atonement as paramount.
He begins the book by arguing that the Gospel is larger than most people make it to be, a statement with which I agree. However, he quickly simplifies it to issues of salvation. I find it somewhat interesting that his book was offered to review at the same time as The Next Christians, which I loved. The latter does a much better job at explaining how the Gospel is much more than simply salvation from Hell.
In any case, I think I found some of the reasons I had problems with Gilbert's text. First of all, he states that as Christians, we value the Bible as infallible and inerrant, thus taking a literal view. This is a big theological assertion, as the majority of Christendom does not view Scripture as both infallible and inerrant. This is an example of how Gilbert implies that if one does not interpret Scripture the same way he does, that individual is not actually a Christian. There are people who take this view. I am not one of them and feel very strongly about this.
This approach to Scripture shapes all of his interpretations, which is where my problems begin. With a literal view, people often approach the Bible from a "plain meaning" perspective, assuming they understand it from a simple reading. Therefore, explanation is not often needed. Gilbert exemplifies this approach by providing evidence for his statements by simply stating, "see Revelation," without additional explanation.
While he makes some good points about the Gospel, this approach of simply citing Scripture without providing his interpretation of it makes his arguments unsupported, in my view. Further, I simply disagree with his reading of many elements of Scripture because I do not approach the Bible as inerrant.
I believe many other things should be considered to help us understand the Bible, including tradition, intuition, science, etc. These things should not supersede the Bible, but they are relevant, as the Bible is not always clear. Gilbert, however, argues that relying on tradition, intuition, etc. for truths, leads to unanswered questions. And he indicates that unanswered questions are unacceptable. This is an area with which I strongly disagree. I think God gives us many unanswered questions, and that is not a problem. In fact, it creates a rich space for growth. And ironically, Gilbert uses the Bible the same way the people he criticizes use tradition and intuition--just accepting what they have been told and not critically engaging it to find Truth.
One of the things Gilbert frequently says is that the Good News of the Bible is that we can be rescued (I agree). However, he says, that unless we know we need to be rescued, it's not good news. So we need to emphasize the sinful, wicked nature of people to point out how depraved they are. I disagree with this. Most people I know actually know very well how much they need help. They don't need others reminding them. That just makes things worse. And sometimes the way we find out we need help is by getting the help and getting out of the situation.
In any case, Gilbert seems to emphasize how we need to know how the Gospel is Good News for me. Not for other people. For me. There's a selfish feel to it, in my opinion. In many ways, he presents what Gabe Lyons describes in The Next Christians as a view of doing good for the most people rather than for all people. Jesus and the Gospel definitely focus on emphasizing good for all people, not just a few. While only a few may take advantage of it, they do not only offer it to those few.
So therefore, cultural change is a powerful thing that is very holy and central to the Gospel. Gilbert argues that cultural transformation is not part of the Gospel. However, the way he describes it seems to be more related to Lyons' description of cultural Christians, those who take Christ in-name-only and look like the culture. In contrast, the restorers are people who are deeply connected to Christ and want to restore the world and the culture to God's hope and dream for the world in a way that will benefit all people. That's a powerful and True Gospel.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Trusting Neuroscience and the Soul @TyndaleHouse @AdamSab
Anatomy of the Soul by Curt Thompson, MD, a psychiatrist intrigued me as it lands squarely in the middle of the integration of modern mental health science and spirituality. This is the first book I received from the Tyndale Blog Network for review that particularly lands in my area of expertise (for those who don't know, I'm a licensed psychologist with an undergrad degree in Religious Studies).
What I appreciate about Thompson's work is that it addresses the neuroscientific findings related to relationships, including relationship with God. For those who have studied neuroscience or psychobiology, some of the material is clearly redundant, but I thought Thompson did a very nice job of summarizing the biology of the brain to help people understand the brain's basics. And then he did not simply relegate all of relationships and spirituality to random brain firing.
He acknowledges that there are biological correlates to spiritual experiences. And that does not bother him. I have not seen any satisfying texts that really engage both hard neuroscience and orthodox theology in such a way that Thompson has done. In fact, he has helped me reconcile information from both sides that often seem irreconcilable.
It's not that he really says anything new (after all, "there's nothing new under the sun" :) ), but he combines ideas and makes connections in ways I have not previously encountered. Such connections are the core of creativity and genius.
He does make some overstatements about the ability of techniques to quickly make changes to life. Or at least these are implied, like his subtitle: "Surprising connections between neuroscience and spiritual practices that can transform your life and relationships." Again, there is nothing new I saw in the book. Rather, it is more of analysis, connecting spiritual practices to biological changes in the brain, which lead to spiritual transformation, and such transformation leads one back to the beginning of more spiritual practices.
I have worked my way very slowly through the book because I wasn't simply willing to read it quickly and for a cursory review. Thompson has made some excellent arguments that will hopefully be the basis for some future blog posts. I may even use the tome in a class or two I may teach...
Again, the content itself is not particularly new; it's the connections. And Thompson engages in excellent process, not willing to ignore the struggles of ambiguity and Truth. In fact, one of the best quotes from his book is right at the beginning, p. 8-9: "When I know that I know something because I can logically prove it, I step away from trust. When I no longer trust, I am no longer open to being known, to relationship, to love." Such a struggle between logic and trust can be manifested in many spiritual and life struggles. It is important to land on the side of trust.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Article Round-up 4/23/10
Here's some good articles from this week:
Why We Fight About This. Specifically, it's about evolution. However, the idea of Christians becoming defensive and closed minded due to a challenge to the cohesiveness of our faith is the very point of this blog. The goal here is to challenge ideas without feeling like the cohesion is gone.
The Pastor As Docent. Great article using the metaphor of a docent in order to describe the role of the pastor. I think it's a very creative and good metaphor.
Spirit-Centered Progressive Christianity. This was written by one of the presenters at the TAG10 conference I attended last month. It almost seems like a response to my biggest criticisms of the conference. I doubt Epperly even read or knows of my comments, but I found his article quite interesting.
Why We Fight About This. Specifically, it's about evolution. However, the idea of Christians becoming defensive and closed minded due to a challenge to the cohesiveness of our faith is the very point of this blog. The goal here is to challenge ideas without feeling like the cohesion is gone.
The Pastor As Docent. Great article using the metaphor of a docent in order to describe the role of the pastor. I think it's a very creative and good metaphor.
Spirit-Centered Progressive Christianity. This was written by one of the presenters at the TAG10 conference I attended last month. It almost seems like a response to my biggest criticisms of the conference. I doubt Epperly even read or knows of my comments, but I found his article quite interesting.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Inconsistent Like Jazz @christianaudio @donmilleris
Overall, I like jazz music. My college roommate was a music major and loved jazz. He played it, so I saw a lot of his concerts, and he took me to see big name jazz musicians. I didn't enjoy as much as he did. It sometimes just seemed odd. But overall, I like jazz a lot.
I had the same feelings to Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. I have heard many excellent things about it over the past few years, so when I saw the audiobook version for $5 at Family Christian Bookstores, I had to pick it up.
First of all, the narrator, Scott Brick, was very good. He was one of the better professional narrators from the christianaudio imprint. He sounded like the great narrators of many of the bestselling fictional books I've read. Like I've said before, though, I still prefer the author to read it for books like this, particularly when written in the first person.
The content overall was good. Miller does a nice job of presenting a realistic, authentic, experiential faith. He appropriately challenges assumptions American Christianity holds, and I deeply appreciate that. He emphasizes the importance of the journey of faith and not always having the clear-cut answers. As readers of this blog know, I emphasize these points frequently.
However, Miller interestingly got stuck in at times in some fundamentalist-like perspectives, particularly around Scripture. He mentioned friends of his by only saying their first names, but based on the context and other information, I could identify them as some people who have solidly fundamentalist streaks.
These people tend to appear to be hip and challenging the establishment (and they do in many ways), yet they approach Scripture in very literalistic and Calvinistic ways. This came through frequently in Miller's text, and it really distracted from the usefulness of his message.
From other reviews and posts on this blog, people will know I do not hold to a strict, literal interpretation of Scripture nor in strict Calvinistic interpretations. Just as Miller challenges many cultural assumptions of the church, these are cultural assumptions that must be challenged. Yet he holds them up as universally accepted ultimate Truth.
At the same time, many people who hold these values are often not willing to consider challenging their other assumptions. So if Miller earn credibility this way to have people begin to challenge themselves, this could be a blessing in disguise.
Overall, I would recommend the book. Just don't ingest it whole without challenging the thoughts. We shouldn't do this with anything though, anyway...
I had the same feelings to Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. I have heard many excellent things about it over the past few years, so when I saw the audiobook version for $5 at Family Christian Bookstores, I had to pick it up.
First of all, the narrator, Scott Brick, was very good. He was one of the better professional narrators from the christianaudio imprint. He sounded like the great narrators of many of the bestselling fictional books I've read. Like I've said before, though, I still prefer the author to read it for books like this, particularly when written in the first person.
The content overall was good. Miller does a nice job of presenting a realistic, authentic, experiential faith. He appropriately challenges assumptions American Christianity holds, and I deeply appreciate that. He emphasizes the importance of the journey of faith and not always having the clear-cut answers. As readers of this blog know, I emphasize these points frequently.
However, Miller interestingly got stuck in at times in some fundamentalist-like perspectives, particularly around Scripture. He mentioned friends of his by only saying their first names, but based on the context and other information, I could identify them as some people who have solidly fundamentalist streaks.
These people tend to appear to be hip and challenging the establishment (and they do in many ways), yet they approach Scripture in very literalistic and Calvinistic ways. This came through frequently in Miller's text, and it really distracted from the usefulness of his message.
From other reviews and posts on this blog, people will know I do not hold to a strict, literal interpretation of Scripture nor in strict Calvinistic interpretations. Just as Miller challenges many cultural assumptions of the church, these are cultural assumptions that must be challenged. Yet he holds them up as universally accepted ultimate Truth.
At the same time, many people who hold these values are often not willing to consider challenging their other assumptions. So if Miller earn credibility this way to have people begin to challenge themselves, this could be a blessing in disguise.
Overall, I would recommend the book. Just don't ingest it whole without challenging the thoughts. We shouldn't do this with anything though, anyway...
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Theology After Google Wrapup or Where's the Praise? #tag10
Sorry for the delayed wrap-up. I finally scheduled my first licensing exam, so the next two weeks will be extra focused on studying. But no more highly anticipated waiting for my final thoughts on the Theology After Google conference. :)
First of all, the third day was by far the best. It was less focused on convincing everyone to use technology and social media and more of showing people various ways of actually utilizing it. I also appreciated that there was less focus on technology as the end-point in contrast to it being a means to an end.
There were a few points that particularly stood out:
In his presentation, Doug Pagitt (whose writings I very much admire and who I was very excited to meet at the conference) discussed different "Ages" that America has passed through that have affected how the church operates. He noted that we have been in the "Age of Information," which has created a church that is all about teaching. I have discussed before the question of the emphasis on teaching in church, but this really helped pinpoint it, describe it, and put it into perspective, particularly that church (even the organization on Sunday mornings) can and should be much more than teaching.
He also describe a phenomenon that I've noted before about the differences between mainline/progressives and evangelicals. While I have described it as a cognitive/affective split, he named it as open minded and challenging one's own assumptions and theology versus challenging one's aesthetics and mode of presentation. I think we're hitting on the same idea: Mainline/progressives are willing to change their thoughts, but not their mode. Evangelicals are willing to change their modes, but not their thoughts. While there's exceptions to these rules, I find them largely true. The problem is, I still have not found a satisfying answer as to why this is the case.
Further, I'm really sick of this divide. My friend and I both noticed that there was evidence of a very strong divide between evangelical thought and mainline/progressive thought. The conference was sponsored by and dominated by the latter, and there were various comments and such that showed a disdain for evangelicalism. I still want something in between. As I shared in a breakout group, I'm currently going to an evangelical church. I can do the cognitive challenging stuff on my own (I do it anyway). I need the group for the praise element. For some reason, I find that that is something that I cannot do satisfactorily on my own.
In response, Doug Pagitt mentioned how he is out of the mindset of "the God of the gaps," referring to God is only present with what man cannot do. I completely agree with him, as readers of this blog should know. God works incarnationally. However, there is something important about occasionally being explicit and praising God. An analogy I thought of is marriage. I should show my wife how much I love her and live that out. However, I also need to say it out loud. And frequently. I think it's the same with God, for God's sake AND for mine. Probably more for my sake, as I'll forget why I'm doing something.
That's one of my biggest criticisms and complaints from the conference. There was a noticeable lack of praise. I called it "devotion and worship" before, but I realized "praise" is probably a better descriptor. I think that may be an artifact of the mainline/progressive tradition. This is what makes me feel more evangelical than I thought I was. Now interacting with many of the top movers of Emergent Village, I understand why some people, like Dan Kimball have separated and started their own organizations. I don't know or remember the reasons why, but if I were deeply involved, I would consider that on the basis of wanting more explicit praise. Yes, I find it that important.
What do you think? What is the role and importance of praise? What does praise look like to you?
First of all, the third day was by far the best. It was less focused on convincing everyone to use technology and social media and more of showing people various ways of actually utilizing it. I also appreciated that there was less focus on technology as the end-point in contrast to it being a means to an end.
There were a few points that particularly stood out:
In his presentation, Doug Pagitt (whose writings I very much admire and who I was very excited to meet at the conference) discussed different "Ages" that America has passed through that have affected how the church operates. He noted that we have been in the "Age of Information," which has created a church that is all about teaching. I have discussed before the question of the emphasis on teaching in church, but this really helped pinpoint it, describe it, and put it into perspective, particularly that church (even the organization on Sunday mornings) can and should be much more than teaching.
He also describe a phenomenon that I've noted before about the differences between mainline/progressives and evangelicals. While I have described it as a cognitive/affective split, he named it as open minded and challenging one's own assumptions and theology versus challenging one's aesthetics and mode of presentation. I think we're hitting on the same idea: Mainline/progressives are willing to change their thoughts, but not their mode. Evangelicals are willing to change their modes, but not their thoughts. While there's exceptions to these rules, I find them largely true. The problem is, I still have not found a satisfying answer as to why this is the case.
Further, I'm really sick of this divide. My friend and I both noticed that there was evidence of a very strong divide between evangelical thought and mainline/progressive thought. The conference was sponsored by and dominated by the latter, and there were various comments and such that showed a disdain for evangelicalism. I still want something in between. As I shared in a breakout group, I'm currently going to an evangelical church. I can do the cognitive challenging stuff on my own (I do it anyway). I need the group for the praise element. For some reason, I find that that is something that I cannot do satisfactorily on my own.
In response, Doug Pagitt mentioned how he is out of the mindset of "the God of the gaps," referring to God is only present with what man cannot do. I completely agree with him, as readers of this blog should know. God works incarnationally. However, there is something important about occasionally being explicit and praising God. An analogy I thought of is marriage. I should show my wife how much I love her and live that out. However, I also need to say it out loud. And frequently. I think it's the same with God, for God's sake AND for mine. Probably more for my sake, as I'll forget why I'm doing something.
That's one of my biggest criticisms and complaints from the conference. There was a noticeable lack of praise. I called it "devotion and worship" before, but I realized "praise" is probably a better descriptor. I think that may be an artifact of the mainline/progressive tradition. This is what makes me feel more evangelical than I thought I was. Now interacting with many of the top movers of Emergent Village, I understand why some people, like Dan Kimball have separated and started their own organizations. I don't know or remember the reasons why, but if I were deeply involved, I would consider that on the basis of wanting more explicit praise. Yes, I find it that important.
What do you think? What is the role and importance of praise? What does praise look like to you?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Biblical Art, Culture, & Ethnicity
Many of us today recognize the inaccuracies of biblical art today, particularly representation of Jesus as blonde-haired and blue-eyed. Jokes are made and Christianity is often trivialized and ridiculed due to ethno-centric representations of Jesus.
And these are very fair criticisms. They often do take us out of the reality of recognizing that we are not the center of the world nor of the biblical story.
However, I also think there is something quite beautiful and redeeming about ethno-centric artistic representations. The Mosaic Bible has weekly art pieces. And several have biblical stories from other cultures. It was very interesting to see multiple versions of the nativity scene in vastly different cultures, times, and ethnicities. Last week, there was a piece entitle "The Parable of the Lost Son" from Hong Kong. It looks like a traditional Chinese artwork. Without the biblical title, I would not have thought it was a biblical piece.
My initial reaction was, "That's not at all accurate." That's true. However, I then checked myself, remembering that most art is inaccurate. Then I realized and remembered the beauty in the fact that virtually all cultures and ethnicities have wanted to and been able to accept Jesus and the Bible as their own.
Art is a way to help us engage the stories. It can help us understand and relate to scenes that are frankly unrelatable in many ways today. We do this with modernizing analogies of parables and stories frequently today. Why can we not do this with art? The fact that we can shows the timelessness, applicability, and Truth of the biblical story.
Further, as I discovered while taking a course that included an emphasis on Medieval art, benefactors of art pieces and the artists themselves were often put into the scenes. Sure, it could be a narcissistic move. But it can also be a way of helping oneself feel closer to God.
I personally think that's quite beautiful. So I would like to ask for redemption of ethno-centric art, not as cultural insensitivity, but as cultural engagement and emphasizing that God will meet us exactly where we are.
Psychology research suggests we do relate better to people who look like us. Next time you see a Jesus who looks like you, as yourself if you are better able to relate to Jesus because of that in contrast to the "real" face of Jesus.
And these are very fair criticisms. They often do take us out of the reality of recognizing that we are not the center of the world nor of the biblical story.
However, I also think there is something quite beautiful and redeeming about ethno-centric artistic representations. The Mosaic Bible has weekly art pieces. And several have biblical stories from other cultures. It was very interesting to see multiple versions of the nativity scene in vastly different cultures, times, and ethnicities. Last week, there was a piece entitle "The Parable of the Lost Son" from Hong Kong. It looks like a traditional Chinese artwork. Without the biblical title, I would not have thought it was a biblical piece.
My initial reaction was, "That's not at all accurate." That's true. However, I then checked myself, remembering that most art is inaccurate. Then I realized and remembered the beauty in the fact that virtually all cultures and ethnicities have wanted to and been able to accept Jesus and the Bible as their own.
Art is a way to help us engage the stories. It can help us understand and relate to scenes that are frankly unrelatable in many ways today. We do this with modernizing analogies of parables and stories frequently today. Why can we not do this with art? The fact that we can shows the timelessness, applicability, and Truth of the biblical story.
Further, as I discovered while taking a course that included an emphasis on Medieval art, benefactors of art pieces and the artists themselves were often put into the scenes. Sure, it could be a narcissistic move. But it can also be a way of helping oneself feel closer to God.
I personally think that's quite beautiful. So I would like to ask for redemption of ethno-centric art, not as cultural insensitivity, but as cultural engagement and emphasizing that God will meet us exactly where we are.
Psychology research suggests we do relate better to people who look like us. Next time you see a Jesus who looks like you, as yourself if you are better able to relate to Jesus because of that in contrast to the "real" face of Jesus.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
"Plain & Simple" Interpretation of Bible and Nature
A lot of my posts recently have been related to biblical interpretation. This first article is focused on the Bible and science, specifically in the context of evolution. I don't want to get into the evolution debate here, but the article discusses some excellent points. In particular, I like the following quotes:
Secondly, regarding Scripture itself, although Augustine and Calvin deeply trusted the Bible as a witness to Christ and the Gospel message, they did not feel any deep need for Scripture to provide dependable insights on everything in human experience.And
Their temperament towards Scripture was very different from what prevails nowadays in pop Christian culture, where it is casually assumed that the Bible is a fool-proof guide for everything … not only for leading us to Christ and right living but also for elucidating the scholarly facts of astronomy, biology, chemistry, economics, psychology, and sociology as well as the practical facts of success in marriage, parenting, health, and personal finances.This second article does an excellent job of exploring the idea of the "plain and simple" message of the Bible and our flawed approaches to a simple understanding. Specifically, I like this quote:
The Bible is written in plain and simple language to the common man – the common man of the ancient Near East, not the common man of the modern Far West. To put it plain and simple, my “plain and simple” is not the Bible’s “plain and simple.”
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Liturgical v. Contemporary Church, Part 2
Three months ago, I wrote a post noting some observations I had about liturgical versus contemporary churches. I recently read this article, entitled The Living Emerging Movement. Many readers of this blog know that I do consider myself best described by the emerging movement. I appreciate it because (from my perspective and my version of it as it seems everyone's definition is different), the conversation is just that: A conversation. There is the ability to discuss life and theology and be critical thinkers in the search for Truth with the hope and belief that there is an ultimate Truth. I think the emerging movement has also reignited discussions and focus on lively worship.
There is a lot of talk of the emerging church being dead or almost dead. I hope it doesn't, in part because of what the above article mentions. McKnight guessed several years ago that emerging Christians each will go one of three ways: into the mainline denominations, back into old evangelicalism, or leading evangelicalism into a missional direction.
I personally can really feel the tension between these options. I'm not sure where I land, which is why I don't want the emerging church to die. It's something with which I can associate that is the best descriptor of me. And I know many people also feel like they are not accurately described by any movement, denomination, or label.
Anyway, one of the reasons I struggle with this is the feeling of worship and what the mainline versus evangelical churches emphasize. I realized this weekend that mainline churches do a very nice job of being critical thinkers. They nail the cognitive elements of Christianity, usually much better than the evangelical churches. I've been a member and a part of evangelicalism for many years, and I can say it often advocates much less than critical thinking.
However, the evangelical churches historically have done an excellent job of having more lively worship. By that I mean more affective, referring to emotion and the full range of emotion. While some people are very moved by the liturgical, traditional services (I went to a service like that for quite a while myself), these models do often have the implication of displaying less affect. Now, as one of my friends has said, evangelical churches have become rather stale recently, focusing more of inauthentic performance rather than real, affective worship. And that's one of the things the emerging movement has challenged.
So in many ways, it seems we have found ourselves in the age-old cognitive-affective, head-heart, thinking-emotion split. It's hard to integrate the two together (believe me--I've worked with many clients on that issue). Yet I long for a church community that can do just that. They exist, but they're hard to find in my experience. What about yours?
There is a lot of talk of the emerging church being dead or almost dead. I hope it doesn't, in part because of what the above article mentions. McKnight guessed several years ago that emerging Christians each will go one of three ways: into the mainline denominations, back into old evangelicalism, or leading evangelicalism into a missional direction.
I personally can really feel the tension between these options. I'm not sure where I land, which is why I don't want the emerging church to die. It's something with which I can associate that is the best descriptor of me. And I know many people also feel like they are not accurately described by any movement, denomination, or label.
Anyway, one of the reasons I struggle with this is the feeling of worship and what the mainline versus evangelical churches emphasize. I realized this weekend that mainline churches do a very nice job of being critical thinkers. They nail the cognitive elements of Christianity, usually much better than the evangelical churches. I've been a member and a part of evangelicalism for many years, and I can say it often advocates much less than critical thinking.
However, the evangelical churches historically have done an excellent job of having more lively worship. By that I mean more affective, referring to emotion and the full range of emotion. While some people are very moved by the liturgical, traditional services (I went to a service like that for quite a while myself), these models do often have the implication of displaying less affect. Now, as one of my friends has said, evangelical churches have become rather stale recently, focusing more of inauthentic performance rather than real, affective worship. And that's one of the things the emerging movement has challenged.
So in many ways, it seems we have found ourselves in the age-old cognitive-affective, head-heart, thinking-emotion split. It's hard to integrate the two together (believe me--I've worked with many clients on that issue). Yet I long for a church community that can do just that. They exist, but they're hard to find in my experience. What about yours?
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Sola Scriptura History
There was a question about Sola Scriptura from another post of mine, and my response became so long, I decided to make it into another blog post. So here it is:
There are people who would only believe something if it were stated in the Bible. The problem is that is not the original intent of Luther's Sola Scriptura.
Luther's development of this theological point was in reference to the Roman Catholic Church asserting various theological truths based on tradition. This was usually done with a political purpose, including maintaining the power of this institutional church and its leaders. As Luther began investigation Scripture, he argued that not all of these theological points were accurate, but the church once again argued against him based on tradition and threatened his life more than once.
Therefore, in contrast to a tradition-based theology, Luther went to the other spectrum, stating that we should only develop theology based on Scripture. That's why he also advocated for all people having the right to read the Bible (previously, only priests were able to do so). He made the first German language translation in order for the masses to be able to read the Bible and therefore challenge beliefs based on tradition.
This is the origin of why many Protestant churches advocate that everyone own and read the Bible and why many Protestant denominations are less hierarchical than the Catholic Church.
The problem is that many people have taken it to the extreme, arguing that if it is not in the Bible, it is not truth. Further, interpretation of the Bible is done out of context. Again, if we hold literally true to Sola Scriptura, then we need not understand other things like psychology, sociology, history, biology, physics, etc. in order to understand Scripture. This obviously creates many theological and interpretation problems, yet many Christians do not even realize they have faced these problems. This article describes some of these problems, too.
We need to interpret the world around us through the lens of the Bible, while interpreting the Bible with the information gleaned from the world.
There are people who would only believe something if it were stated in the Bible. The problem is that is not the original intent of Luther's Sola Scriptura.
Luther's development of this theological point was in reference to the Roman Catholic Church asserting various theological truths based on tradition. This was usually done with a political purpose, including maintaining the power of this institutional church and its leaders. As Luther began investigation Scripture, he argued that not all of these theological points were accurate, but the church once again argued against him based on tradition and threatened his life more than once.
Therefore, in contrast to a tradition-based theology, Luther went to the other spectrum, stating that we should only develop theology based on Scripture. That's why he also advocated for all people having the right to read the Bible (previously, only priests were able to do so). He made the first German language translation in order for the masses to be able to read the Bible and therefore challenge beliefs based on tradition.
This is the origin of why many Protestant churches advocate that everyone own and read the Bible and why many Protestant denominations are less hierarchical than the Catholic Church.
The problem is that many people have taken it to the extreme, arguing that if it is not in the Bible, it is not truth. Further, interpretation of the Bible is done out of context. Again, if we hold literally true to Sola Scriptura, then we need not understand other things like psychology, sociology, history, biology, physics, etc. in order to understand Scripture. This obviously creates many theological and interpretation problems, yet many Christians do not even realize they have faced these problems. This article describes some of these problems, too.
We need to interpret the world around us through the lens of the Bible, while interpreting the Bible with the information gleaned from the world.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Luther's Incarnational Gospel
This weekend, I found a neat plaque with a quote from Martin Luther, saying "God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars."
Anyway, I really like and agree with this quote and find it quite interesting that it comes from Luther. As many people know, Luther advocated Sola Scriptura, stating that we only use Scripture to come to conclusions. I wrote an earlier post challenging this theology, too.
Assuming this quote really did come from Luther and is not a popular misattribution (Googling it seems to show that it really was attributable to Luther, although I don't know the original source), I think it emphasizes that followers of various leaders and theologians may not understand them correctly. Even before Luther died, many people misinterpreted his work and took it to disturbing levels, which included the deaths of many people. We need to be aware of our potential misinterpretations of various theologies.
Sola Scriptura is one of them. I think it's really important to remember the other ways God writes and shares the Gospel. It's not just in the explicit text of the Bible. And we must remember that the world around us influences our interpretations of the Gospel. How and where have you seen the Gospel?
Anyway, I really like and agree with this quote and find it quite interesting that it comes from Luther. As many people know, Luther advocated Sola Scriptura, stating that we only use Scripture to come to conclusions. I wrote an earlier post challenging this theology, too.
Assuming this quote really did come from Luther and is not a popular misattribution (Googling it seems to show that it really was attributable to Luther, although I don't know the original source), I think it emphasizes that followers of various leaders and theologians may not understand them correctly. Even before Luther died, many people misinterpreted his work and took it to disturbing levels, which included the deaths of many people. We need to be aware of our potential misinterpretations of various theologies.
Sola Scriptura is one of them. I think it's really important to remember the other ways God writes and shares the Gospel. It's not just in the explicit text of the Bible. And we must remember that the world around us influences our interpretations of the Gospel. How and where have you seen the Gospel?
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Set Apart
Last week, I discussed the love one another verse in Leviticus and a way of looking at Leviticus other than the legalistic way we often approach it.
This past week, Luke 6:27-42 was part of the devotional liturgy in the Mosaic Bible. This is the passage on loving your enemies. As I was reading it, I thought back to the Levitical love passage and blog post. This is another passage that is often approached legalistically, with people sometimes literally saying to have people whack you on both cheeks.
I'm not sure Jesus was advocating a literal adherence to this way of loving our enemies. This time reading through it, the passage hit me more as a way of living out the "love one another" command and setting ourselves apart from the rest of the culture. The culture at the time of Jesus was not very loving. There was a lot of hierarchy and abuse (including quite literal, physical abuse). So engaging people in a different way was as a significant a difference as the ways the Israelites were commanded to act in Leviticus in contrast to the other Canaanites. Frankly, in Jesus' time, living out Leviticus would not have really been that significant as a way of setting believers apart.
We are a much more loving society, at least on the surface. Treating people fairly is expected (again, at least on the surface). Are we really asked to become doormats and walked all over. I don't think so. Rather, we need to love people radically in ways that are holy and biblical and are different from the rest of the world. This is not to say that loving people in the ways of the world are inappropriate. We just need to do something more, too.
I'm honestly not totally sure what this would look like. I have some ideas, but I'd rather hear what some of yours are.
This past week, Luke 6:27-42 was part of the devotional liturgy in the Mosaic Bible. This is the passage on loving your enemies. As I was reading it, I thought back to the Levitical love passage and blog post. This is another passage that is often approached legalistically, with people sometimes literally saying to have people whack you on both cheeks.
I'm not sure Jesus was advocating a literal adherence to this way of loving our enemies. This time reading through it, the passage hit me more as a way of living out the "love one another" command and setting ourselves apart from the rest of the culture. The culture at the time of Jesus was not very loving. There was a lot of hierarchy and abuse (including quite literal, physical abuse). So engaging people in a different way was as a significant a difference as the ways the Israelites were commanded to act in Leviticus in contrast to the other Canaanites. Frankly, in Jesus' time, living out Leviticus would not have really been that significant as a way of setting believers apart.
We are a much more loving society, at least on the surface. Treating people fairly is expected (again, at least on the surface). Are we really asked to become doormats and walked all over. I don't think so. Rather, we need to love people radically in ways that are holy and biblical and are different from the rest of the world. This is not to say that loving people in the ways of the world are inappropriate. We just need to do something more, too.
I'm honestly not totally sure what this would look like. I have some ideas, but I'd rather hear what some of yours are.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Purpose of Church
What do you look for in a church? As my wife and I have explored options since we moved, I had an interesting conversation with a pastor, in which he noted that we have the desire to connect, and he asked for clarification if this was to connect with God, other people, or what.
I hadn't thought of it in terms like this, but I realized I do not feel like I really need church to connect with God, per se. I feel like I connect with God very well on my own and with my wife. I do not need a church to do that. This particularly true with contemplative techniques. For me, they feel more effective in solitude or with a small group than with a large group.
In contrast, church seems, for me, to be an opportunity to connect with other believers and experience God incarnationally. Now, this is therefore a way of connecting with God, but it is a slight difference from directly connecting with God.
The relationships among the Church body are important. They give us life and help us remember our priorities.
Church organizations are not necessarily needed to connect with God, I don't believe. That is not to say church and Church (the former being the organization and the latter being all believers) is not important. To the contrary: It is quite important, but not necessarily for the reasons we often are told about church.
This is definitely a distinctly Protestant view, of course. What do you think?
I hadn't thought of it in terms like this, but I realized I do not feel like I really need church to connect with God, per se. I feel like I connect with God very well on my own and with my wife. I do not need a church to do that. This particularly true with contemplative techniques. For me, they feel more effective in solitude or with a small group than with a large group.
In contrast, church seems, for me, to be an opportunity to connect with other believers and experience God incarnationally. Now, this is therefore a way of connecting with God, but it is a slight difference from directly connecting with God.
The relationships among the Church body are important. They give us life and help us remember our priorities.
Church organizations are not necessarily needed to connect with God, I don't believe. That is not to say church and Church (the former being the organization and the latter being all believers) is not important. To the contrary: It is quite important, but not necessarily for the reasons we often are told about church.
This is definitely a distinctly Protestant view, of course. What do you think?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Following God & Hearing God's Voice
I heard a message this weekend on John 10:1-21. This is the famous passage about Jesus saying "my sheep hear my voice." I've heard this passage be preached on many times, and honestly, I've never been particularly satisfied with any interpretations.
Namely, most messages on this seem to be quite an oversimplification. Most people do not address the complexity of following God and hearing his voice. This is an incredibly nuanced aspect of our relationship with the Lord. Frankly, it's something that probably cannot be adequately addressed in a single sermon. Full books are written on the topic and still seem like an oversimplification.
Have you encountered this also? Have you heard a good message on the topic that addresses the complexity and richness of following and listening to God?
Namely, most messages on this seem to be quite an oversimplification. Most people do not address the complexity of following God and hearing his voice. This is an incredibly nuanced aspect of our relationship with the Lord. Frankly, it's something that probably cannot be adequately addressed in a single sermon. Full books are written on the topic and still seem like an oversimplification.
Have you encountered this also? Have you heard a good message on the topic that addresses the complexity and richness of following and listening to God?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Love in Leviticus
Those who have read the Old Testament know that Leviticus is not the most interesting of all books. It is full of rules and regulations about how to be holy for God. This book is often used from the holiness tradition to tell people what they do wrong and how to live righteously. Honestly, I rarely hear this book used in a positive way, but rather in a legalistic way.
On Sunday night, I was reading through the weekly readings in my Mosaic Bible, which included Leviticus 19:18. I was surprised to see "love your neighbor as yourself" there. For one reason or another, I never remember hearing that this was ever in the Old Testament; it's always quoted in reference to Jesus.
I think it's significant that love is explicitly prescribed in the Old Testament, particularly in a book that is focused on rules. This should remind us that we need to view all rules in the context of love.
Also, since we're on the topic of Leviticus, I think it is often misused to support legalistic holiness. From my studies of it, it seems more appropriate to view the various rules (which are often strict and numerous) as a way of setting the Israelites apart from the rest of the world. The rules themselves are not necessarily holy, but rather the process in what they mean. If we are to live a holy life, that does not necessarily mean living out Leviticus literally, but rather in process: What sets us, as Christians, apart from society, particularly emphasizing love?
On Sunday night, I was reading through the weekly readings in my Mosaic Bible, which included Leviticus 19:18. I was surprised to see "love your neighbor as yourself" there. For one reason or another, I never remember hearing that this was ever in the Old Testament; it's always quoted in reference to Jesus.
I think it's significant that love is explicitly prescribed in the Old Testament, particularly in a book that is focused on rules. This should remind us that we need to view all rules in the context of love.
Also, since we're on the topic of Leviticus, I think it is often misused to support legalistic holiness. From my studies of it, it seems more appropriate to view the various rules (which are often strict and numerous) as a way of setting the Israelites apart from the rest of the world. The rules themselves are not necessarily holy, but rather the process in what they mean. If we are to live a holy life, that does not necessarily mean living out Leviticus literally, but rather in process: What sets us, as Christians, apart from society, particularly emphasizing love?
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Church Mistakes
This is an incredibly good article, entitle Seven Mistakes Every Church Should Avoid. I could repeat what is in the article and say more, but the author does it quite nicely and succinctly.
I particularly appreciate #2: Misrepresenting the tithe, #4: Over-emphasizing the role of the pastor, and #7: Conversion-focus instead of disciple-making.
I agree whole-heartedly with all of those. What are your reactions?
I particularly appreciate #2: Misrepresenting the tithe, #4: Over-emphasizing the role of the pastor, and #7: Conversion-focus instead of disciple-making.
I agree whole-heartedly with all of those. What are your reactions?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Some Good Articles
I've been a bit behind on blogging recently because work has been uber-busy and because I'm trying to spend extra time studying for my licensing exams. At some point, I want to make some excellent comments about the films The Book of Eli and The Secret of Kells. Both have very nice spiritual elements. This is a good review of Eli, exploring some of these elements. And I first became interested in the film after this article (plus, Denzel is my favorite actor, and I'll basically see whatever he's in). I would say I enjoyed Kells more, but Eli was definitely powerful (although clearly more bloody). But I recommend both if you have the chance for either.
So you all don't start getting withdrawls from my posts (because I know people hang so much on every one of my posts and words :) ), here's some interesting articles that I recommend:
How the Early Church Read the Bible (I like the comments about a self-focused Gospel--it actually seems to tap into some of the themes of Eli)
Spiritual Lives All Their Own (about kids' spiritualities)
Would a Religious Conversion Change Your Brain? (emphasizes that it isn't nature v. nurture--they work together)
Missional Community Formation (emphasizing that false boundaries of faith traditions are not terribly helpful)
The Battle Lines Over Justice (again emphasizing the stupidity of some of these boundaries)
Believing in God and Evolution (Gasp!)
And then there's the humorous, not safe for work photo that might offend some, but that I find hilarious.
So you all don't start getting withdrawls from my posts (because I know people hang so much on every one of my posts and words :) ), here's some interesting articles that I recommend:
How the Early Church Read the Bible (I like the comments about a self-focused Gospel--it actually seems to tap into some of the themes of Eli)
Spiritual Lives All Their Own (about kids' spiritualities)
Would a Religious Conversion Change Your Brain? (emphasizes that it isn't nature v. nurture--they work together)
Missional Community Formation (emphasizing that false boundaries of faith traditions are not terribly helpful)
The Battle Lines Over Justice (again emphasizing the stupidity of some of these boundaries)
Believing in God and Evolution (Gasp!)
And then there's the humorous, not safe for work photo that might offend some, but that I find hilarious.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Just Don't Read Just Do Something
This review of Just Do Something by Kevin DeYoung was made possible through a complimentary copy of the audiobook through christianaudio's reviewer program.
I was looking forward to this book, expecting a bit of an incarnational perspective on finding God's will. That was there, but not in the way I expected. It presented nothing useful and was possibly the worst religion book I've read (or listened to). In fact, I think it can be quite spiritually, relationally, and psychologically damaging.
It seems appropriate to start the review with the title. Compared with other books I've reviewed recently, this title is very appropriate and accurate. In fact, it tells you exactly what the book is about. DeYoung's answer to God's will is don't worry about it; just do something. Anything. As long as it is not morally reprehensible.
This is where I started having problems. DeYoung discusses valid problems in today's society, namely indecision. But his solution is too extreme of just doing something. I do not believe that is the answer, nor is it God's desire for us to just act. I could probably go line-by-line with counterpoints to DeYoung's assertions, but that would make another book, and it's hard to do with an audiobook.
Here's a couple of his main points, though. One is that we do not really need to seek counsel in most any situation. That's what God gave us a brain for. Okay, that's true that we should use our minds, but that's also what the Holy Spirit is for. DeYoung's way of dealing with God's will does not require any real relationship with God; it just requires a knowledge of Scripture. He states that the Spirit speaks to us through Scripture. Fair enough. But he also speaks to us in other ways. True, they're subjective at times, as DeYoung says, but that does not mean they're unhelpful. Frankly, biblical interpretations are subjective, too.
He argues decisions need to be made in alignment with God's goals for our lives. I couldn't find the quote again in the audiobook, but the first two goals are moral purity and theological fidelity. Compassion was in the list, but it almost seemed an afterthought. While moral purity and theological fidelity are nice, Jesus did say the greatest commandment is to love God and love others. I think love is the primary purpose.
DeYoung argues that we do not have to worry about what we do because whatever we do will be what God's will is. Sorry. Completely disagree there. There's many examples everyone could come up with of ways that we act that are not in alignment with God's will.
He also asserts that we should never worry because that is a sign of little or no faith. True, God does not want us to worry, but we do. That's normal and not necessarily a sign of spiritual frailty. I could go on on this topic for hours from my psychology profession...
Then there's the real juicy stuff. It seems one of the primary reasons he wrote this book is because people are waiting to get married. He stated that in most cases, people should be married and own a house by 30. He sees a lot of problems as due to delayed marriage. That may contribute to some social problems, but there may be other, better solutions than just getting married earlier.
He almost argues that everything will be solved by marriage and mentions many "problems" due to and causing delayed marriage. Frankly, many of them seem like no big deal and not problematic. While he states there is nothing wrong with singleness, I just simply do not believe him. He pushes people to get married, saying things like, "Getting married is good for your sanctification."
He tells men that if you like a girl (and she likes you), you're both Christian, and no one has major problems, get married. This is one of the worst pieces of advice I've ever heard. This is the kind of thing that causes needless divorce or horrific marriages.
He goes on to say that women start a career, "which is not necessarily wrong, when they would rather be married and having children." He says, "Men, if you want to be married, find a godly gal, treat her right, talk to her parents, pop the question, tie the knot, and start making babies." I couldn't even believe I heard him say these things.
Not that these aren't important, but marriage and kids don't have to happen immediately. And they definitely do not solve all problems. There's also a lot more to life than that. DeYoung does not think so, arguing that fulfillment is selfish and not in God's plan. He needs to read the psychological literature on it, though, starting with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In a situation, like many of my generation's grandparents grew up in, the focus was on a lower level of needs (like food and shelter), which were not guaranteed. Now for most Americans, those are not a struggle, so we can address higher level needs, including self-esteem and self-actualization. They are critically important.
My wife listened to this section, and she was shocked, also saying this book is awful, damaging, and offensive to women. She adds, "this is exactly the kind of crippling fear that so many single women feel today... that there's something wrong with them because they're not married yet.. this just adds to that feeling of inadequacy! The author is basically saying that we as women are all just waiting around for a man to come along so our lives can finally start. That's sickening." I completely agree.
DeYoung relies too much on his grandfather's perspectives as fact. We need to look to our elders for wisdom, but not all of them did things perfectly nor do they understand everything perfectly. My grandpa would disagree with his. So does that mean I can write a book arrogantly asserting that I know all Truth about God's will based on my grandpa?
The narrator, Adam Verner, was fine. He had good tone and intonation and made the book relatively interesting. Frankly, he was the best part of the book.
Better books dealing with God's will are John Eldredge's Walking with God (DeYoung criticized an unnamed book, but I think it was this one) and Francis Chan's Forgotten God. If you want a contrary opinion to those books or want to explore perspectives on God's will, this could be useful. Otherwise, don't waste your time on this book. I think it's unhelpful at best, spiritually and psychologically damaging at neutral, and possibly borderline heretical at worst.
I was looking forward to this book, expecting a bit of an incarnational perspective on finding God's will. That was there, but not in the way I expected. It presented nothing useful and was possibly the worst religion book I've read (or listened to). In fact, I think it can be quite spiritually, relationally, and psychologically damaging.
It seems appropriate to start the review with the title. Compared with other books I've reviewed recently, this title is very appropriate and accurate. In fact, it tells you exactly what the book is about. DeYoung's answer to God's will is don't worry about it; just do something. Anything. As long as it is not morally reprehensible.
This is where I started having problems. DeYoung discusses valid problems in today's society, namely indecision. But his solution is too extreme of just doing something. I do not believe that is the answer, nor is it God's desire for us to just act. I could probably go line-by-line with counterpoints to DeYoung's assertions, but that would make another book, and it's hard to do with an audiobook.
Here's a couple of his main points, though. One is that we do not really need to seek counsel in most any situation. That's what God gave us a brain for. Okay, that's true that we should use our minds, but that's also what the Holy Spirit is for. DeYoung's way of dealing with God's will does not require any real relationship with God; it just requires a knowledge of Scripture. He states that the Spirit speaks to us through Scripture. Fair enough. But he also speaks to us in other ways. True, they're subjective at times, as DeYoung says, but that does not mean they're unhelpful. Frankly, biblical interpretations are subjective, too.
He argues decisions need to be made in alignment with God's goals for our lives. I couldn't find the quote again in the audiobook, but the first two goals are moral purity and theological fidelity. Compassion was in the list, but it almost seemed an afterthought. While moral purity and theological fidelity are nice, Jesus did say the greatest commandment is to love God and love others. I think love is the primary purpose.
DeYoung argues that we do not have to worry about what we do because whatever we do will be what God's will is. Sorry. Completely disagree there. There's many examples everyone could come up with of ways that we act that are not in alignment with God's will.
He also asserts that we should never worry because that is a sign of little or no faith. True, God does not want us to worry, but we do. That's normal and not necessarily a sign of spiritual frailty. I could go on on this topic for hours from my psychology profession...
Then there's the real juicy stuff. It seems one of the primary reasons he wrote this book is because people are waiting to get married. He stated that in most cases, people should be married and own a house by 30. He sees a lot of problems as due to delayed marriage. That may contribute to some social problems, but there may be other, better solutions than just getting married earlier.
He almost argues that everything will be solved by marriage and mentions many "problems" due to and causing delayed marriage. Frankly, many of them seem like no big deal and not problematic. While he states there is nothing wrong with singleness, I just simply do not believe him. He pushes people to get married, saying things like, "Getting married is good for your sanctification."
He tells men that if you like a girl (and she likes you), you're both Christian, and no one has major problems, get married. This is one of the worst pieces of advice I've ever heard. This is the kind of thing that causes needless divorce or horrific marriages.
He goes on to say that women start a career, "which is not necessarily wrong, when they would rather be married and having children." He says, "Men, if you want to be married, find a godly gal, treat her right, talk to her parents, pop the question, tie the knot, and start making babies." I couldn't even believe I heard him say these things.
Not that these aren't important, but marriage and kids don't have to happen immediately. And they definitely do not solve all problems. There's also a lot more to life than that. DeYoung does not think so, arguing that fulfillment is selfish and not in God's plan. He needs to read the psychological literature on it, though, starting with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In a situation, like many of my generation's grandparents grew up in, the focus was on a lower level of needs (like food and shelter), which were not guaranteed. Now for most Americans, those are not a struggle, so we can address higher level needs, including self-esteem and self-actualization. They are critically important.
My wife listened to this section, and she was shocked, also saying this book is awful, damaging, and offensive to women. She adds, "this is exactly the kind of crippling fear that so many single women feel today... that there's something wrong with them because they're not married yet.. this just adds to that feeling of inadequacy! The author is basically saying that we as women are all just waiting around for a man to come along so our lives can finally start. That's sickening." I completely agree.
DeYoung relies too much on his grandfather's perspectives as fact. We need to look to our elders for wisdom, but not all of them did things perfectly nor do they understand everything perfectly. My grandpa would disagree with his. So does that mean I can write a book arrogantly asserting that I know all Truth about God's will based on my grandpa?
The narrator, Adam Verner, was fine. He had good tone and intonation and made the book relatively interesting. Frankly, he was the best part of the book.
Better books dealing with God's will are John Eldredge's Walking with God (DeYoung criticized an unnamed book, but I think it was this one) and Francis Chan's Forgotten God. If you want a contrary opinion to those books or want to explore perspectives on God's will, this could be useful. Otherwise, don't waste your time on this book. I think it's unhelpful at best, spiritually and psychologically damaging at neutral, and possibly borderline heretical at worst.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Semi-Memorable Forgotten God
I recently finished listening to the audiobook version of Francis Chan's Forgotten God: Reversing Our Tragic Neglect of the Holy Spirit. It was not as part of one of the reviewer programs, although I did get it free through a christianaudio coupon code.
This is sometimes billed as the sequel to Crazy Love, which I really liked. The interview with Chan preceding the book itself was very nice, and Chan said he actually was more excited about this book than Crazy Love. When I started it, I liked it a lot more, too. He starts by saying we need to challenge our beliefs constantly to make sure we are as accurate as we can be. I probably liked it because that's the foundation of this blog! :)
In the interview, Chan also acknowledges he is not a great reader, but prefers to read this book himself because he cares so much about it. Like I've said in previous reviews, I'm so happy he did because his passion really comes through. And something happened between Crazy Love and Forgotten God because he is a MUCH better reader. He was very engaging and did not sound like he was just reading.
His basic premise is that Christians often forget about the Holy Spirit, a person of God just as important as the Father and the Son. I particularly like how he asserts that we need to start calling the Spirit "he" instead of "it," which we usually do, relegating the Spirit to some odd, nonpersonal thing. Through these kinds of words, Chan does a nice job of presenting the Spirit in a new way. Like he even says in the interview, this book really does not say anything new, but says it in ways that quite powerful and engaging.
Partway through the book, I started becoming a bit bored. Forgotten God is much more cognitive than Crazy Love, which was much more passionate and heart-focused. This is not always a bad thing by any means. I tend to live in my head more, which may be why I prefer tomes that focus on the heart more because that's more of my need.
The other difficulty I had with the book is Chan presents thing in a bit of an idealistic situation. He talks about ways of living with the Spirit that are nice, but are not always practical. As one friend said, we do not always live in a state of "spiritual heroics." We are not always intoxicated by overwhelming, crazy love for God. Just as in other relationships, feelings are transient, and that is okay. However, with some of the way Chan talks, one could feel guilty for not always being on a spiritual high.
Overall, though, I recommend this book. It is an excellent treatise on the Holy Spirit and definitely made me more aware of him.
This is sometimes billed as the sequel to Crazy Love, which I really liked. The interview with Chan preceding the book itself was very nice, and Chan said he actually was more excited about this book than Crazy Love. When I started it, I liked it a lot more, too. He starts by saying we need to challenge our beliefs constantly to make sure we are as accurate as we can be. I probably liked it because that's the foundation of this blog! :)
In the interview, Chan also acknowledges he is not a great reader, but prefers to read this book himself because he cares so much about it. Like I've said in previous reviews, I'm so happy he did because his passion really comes through. And something happened between Crazy Love and Forgotten God because he is a MUCH better reader. He was very engaging and did not sound like he was just reading.
His basic premise is that Christians often forget about the Holy Spirit, a person of God just as important as the Father and the Son. I particularly like how he asserts that we need to start calling the Spirit "he" instead of "it," which we usually do, relegating the Spirit to some odd, nonpersonal thing. Through these kinds of words, Chan does a nice job of presenting the Spirit in a new way. Like he even says in the interview, this book really does not say anything new, but says it in ways that quite powerful and engaging.
Partway through the book, I started becoming a bit bored. Forgotten God is much more cognitive than Crazy Love, which was much more passionate and heart-focused. This is not always a bad thing by any means. I tend to live in my head more, which may be why I prefer tomes that focus on the heart more because that's more of my need.
The other difficulty I had with the book is Chan presents thing in a bit of an idealistic situation. He talks about ways of living with the Spirit that are nice, but are not always practical. As one friend said, we do not always live in a state of "spiritual heroics." We are not always intoxicated by overwhelming, crazy love for God. Just as in other relationships, feelings are transient, and that is okay. However, with some of the way Chan talks, one could feel guilty for not always being on a spiritual high.
Overall, though, I recommend this book. It is an excellent treatise on the Holy Spirit and definitely made me more aware of him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)