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.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Golden Calf or YHWH?
Most people have heard the story of the Hebrews roaming the desert and how they made a golden calf. Moses was up on the mount with God (lucky him). The Hebrews got restless and convinced Aaron to make an idol--a golden calf.
This story is usually used to condemn (as usual) the Hebrews and point out their wickedness and stupidity. They have God right there on the hill. They have seen great miracles. Yet they create a crummy little golden calf as their god.
I wonder if this is really as accurate as think it is. I've never heard this interpretation, but I'm going to throw it out as an option. As many people know, God's name in Hebrew is YHWH, often written as Yahweh in English. There are many records of this name, both biblically and extra-biblically.
As many know, the various gods were represented in images. But did you know Yahweh was, too? I don't remember the exact details, but he was represented as bull or cow or something along those lines.
Does that sound similar at all to the golden calf story? What if the Hebrews were not replacing Yahweh, but simply creating a representation of him that they could see and touch? Most of us essentially do that with various religious trinkets, most notably crosses. It's a way of feeling God's presence with us.
What if the issue was not the Hebrews replacing God, but them interacting with God in ways similar to other cultures (i.e. using a physical idol)? Many of the strict rules set forth as the Hebrews transitioned from Egypt to Israel were changed over time to be made less strict. Many interpretations of the rules include them existing in order to set the Hebrew nation apart from other nations. The Hebrews were messing with this by creating the idol.
What do you think? Could this be a possibility? I throw it out, not because it will make much difference, but we should remember that our interpretations of biblical stories on first read (or second, third, etc.) may not be as accurate as they actually are. Things may be much more complicated...
This story is usually used to condemn (as usual) the Hebrews and point out their wickedness and stupidity. They have God right there on the hill. They have seen great miracles. Yet they create a crummy little golden calf as their god.
I wonder if this is really as accurate as think it is. I've never heard this interpretation, but I'm going to throw it out as an option. As many people know, God's name in Hebrew is YHWH, often written as Yahweh in English. There are many records of this name, both biblically and extra-biblically.
As many know, the various gods were represented in images. But did you know Yahweh was, too? I don't remember the exact details, but he was represented as bull or cow or something along those lines.
Does that sound similar at all to the golden calf story? What if the Hebrews were not replacing Yahweh, but simply creating a representation of him that they could see and touch? Most of us essentially do that with various religious trinkets, most notably crosses. It's a way of feeling God's presence with us.
What if the issue was not the Hebrews replacing God, but them interacting with God in ways similar to other cultures (i.e. using a physical idol)? Many of the strict rules set forth as the Hebrews transitioned from Egypt to Israel were changed over time to be made less strict. Many interpretations of the rules include them existing in order to set the Hebrew nation apart from other nations. The Hebrews were messing with this by creating the idol.
What do you think? Could this be a possibility? I throw it out, not because it will make much difference, but we should remember that our interpretations of biblical stories on first read (or second, third, etc.) may not be as accurate as they actually are. Things may be much more complicated...
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Sending to Hell
As probably all of us have heard, many people consign others to Hell. Sometimes on a regular basis. You've heard it: So-and-so is definitely in Hell.
I've heard it in news articles, on street corners, in casual conversation, on blogs, from the pulpit, and probably in many other situations.
I wonder if this is really useful, effective, or God honoring...
I think there's something to be said for having humility of not assuming we completely understand an individual's relationship with God. Sure, there are times when we can be pretty sure someone may not be a "Christian," but what is the benefit of advertising that?
In small settings, a discussion may be acceptable, but I personally have an issue when it's in a large, public setting, particularly from the pulpit. Not only have I disagreed with many of the judgments of preachers, the comments can be misunderstood, and the speaker may not have time to clarify what they mean by it or why they think a person is in Hell.
Again, though, what does it matter? Why are we judging others who are already dead? Is this really useful? What do you think?
I've heard it in news articles, on street corners, in casual conversation, on blogs, from the pulpit, and probably in many other situations.
I wonder if this is really useful, effective, or God honoring...
I think there's something to be said for having humility of not assuming we completely understand an individual's relationship with God. Sure, there are times when we can be pretty sure someone may not be a "Christian," but what is the benefit of advertising that?
In small settings, a discussion may be acceptable, but I personally have an issue when it's in a large, public setting, particularly from the pulpit. Not only have I disagreed with many of the judgments of preachers, the comments can be misunderstood, and the speaker may not have time to clarify what they mean by it or why they think a person is in Hell.
Again, though, what does it matter? Why are we judging others who are already dead? Is this really useful? What do you think?
Friday, April 16, 2010
Homosexuality & the Church
Some of you long-time evangelicals will probably know of Jennifer Knapp. I remember listening to hear in late high school. She had too rough an edge for my preference, but she was good. There was a recent interview she did with Christianity Today that had some very powerful statements.
The interview was spurred on by her return to the music industry (I found out she took a 7 year hiatus). Of particular focus in part of the interview was the fact that she has come out as gay. I find it interesting that this is a point of emphasis in the interview. It would probably not be the case in other, secular magazines. However, it was relevant, as there was discussion about how her homosexuality impacted her hiatus from music and her return.
Her responses to a couple of questions (copied below) were particularly powerful to me in emphasizing how the American church does such an awful job at interacting with sexuality. We destroy people's spirituality and create a spiritual struggle where there may not be one. Do we really need to induce crises of faith and make problems worse than they really are? And I think it's quite important to note that people who are homosexual can have an incredible zeal for Christ.
Whatever your opinion of homosexuality, please remember to put it in context and to treat homosexuals with dignity and respect. If homosexuality is a sin, it is a sin no worse than the many you and I commit on a daily basis. Why should it prevent anyone from having a relationship with God or communing with a group of believers?
________________________
I understand. But I'm curious: Were you struggling with same-sex attraction when writing your first three albums? Those songs are so confessional, clearly coming from a place of a person who knows her need for grace and mercy.
Knapp: To be honest, it never occurred to me while writing those songs. I wasn't seeking out a same-sex relationship during that time.
During my college years, I received some admonishment about some relationships I'd had with women. Some people said, "You might want to renegotiate that," even though those relationships weren't sexual. Hindsight being 20/20, I guess it makes sense. But if you remove the social problem that homosexuality brings to the church—and the debate as to whether or not it should be called a "struggle," because there are proponents on both sides—you remove the notion that I am living my life with a great deal of joy. It never occurred to me that I was in something that should be labeled as a "struggle." The struggle I've had has been with the church, acknowledging me as a human being, trying to live the spiritual life that I've been called to, in whatever ramshackled, broken, frustrated way that I've always approached my faith. I still consider my hope to be a whole human being, to be a person of love and grace. So it's difficult for me to say that I've struggled within myself, because I haven't. I've struggled with other people. I've struggled with what that means in my own faith. I have struggled with how that perception of me will affect the way I feel about myself.
________________________
So why come out of the closet, so to speak?
Knapp: I'm in no way capable of leading a charge for some kind of activist movement. I'm just a normal human being who's dealing with normal everyday life scenarios. As a Christian, I'm doing that as best as I can. The heartbreaking thing to me is that we're all hopelessly deceived if we don't think that there are people within our churches, within our communities, who want to hold on to the person they love, whatever sex that may be, and hold on to their faith. It's a hard notion. It will be a struggle for those who are in a spot that they have to choose between one or the other. The struggle I've been through—and I don't know if I will ever be fully out of it—is feeling like I have to justify my faith or the decisions that I've made to choose to love who I choose to love.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Consider Ignoring Why Is God Ignoring Me?
My most recent review for the Tyndale Blog Network is Gary Habermas' Why is God Ignoring Me?: What To Do When It Feels Like He's Giving You the Silent Treatment. Tyndale House Publishers provided me a complimentary copy of the book to review.
With the focus of this blog on doubt and struggles, this is one of the most relevant reviews. When I saw the title and description, I jumped at the chance to review it, very excited with what I saw. I was hoping it would be a great resource to send people to when they are struggling or experiencing a dark night of the soul.
The description stated the book "gives us the freedom to ask our tough questions... and the wisdom to find the answers." This is the kind of thing I live on and love promoting. In the introduction, Habermas states that "what we tell ourselves is of utmost importance in terms of how we 'feel' about God's seeming silence" (p. xiii). I completely agree with that, as our anxiety about doubt often causes the problems. This anxiety prevents us from asking the tough questions, but rather let them sit and fester.
The problem is that the introduction is where the book stops being helpful. It transitions from a book that really could help people sit with the discomfort of experiencing silence from God into a book that truly fulfills the subtitle "what to do when it feels like He's giving you the silent treatment."
Habermas' proposition is that God does not give people the "silent treatment," but rather it is people's perceptions of God and his actions that make it appear like God is silent. While I agree that is often the case, this completely disregards authentic times that God may not be overtly speaking to us, specifically as in a dark night of the soul, in which God tends to be more passive.
Framing this experience as solely due to the individual's error not only invalidates the person's experience, but can make it worse. Therefore, I would not recommend this tome to anyone experiencing a dark night. The closest Habermas gets to describing a God-initiated silence is stating, "God's silence could also be a reprimand or time-out response" (p. 130). This can be true, but still puts blame on the individual in a negative way that is not congruent with a dark night.
Besides the poor framing of the book, the content overall is relatively good. It's just too focused on giving answers rather than really asking questions and struggling with the answers. I completely agree that we often expect God to work in ways that he does not always work. Habermas describes an Incarnational perspective very well, which I appreciate. He also talks about how our past, emotions, and thoughts can cloud our ability to see God at work. That's totally true. This book can be useful for people in those circumstances.
I had a couple of significant frustrations with some of the content, though:
Habermas frequently refers to unanswered prayers. While the Garth Brooks song Unanswered Prayers is one of my favorite songs, it is also one of the songs that annoys me the most. I think the concept of a prayer being unanswered is complete baloney. Yes, that is my theological perspective, but still. The way the term is often used is for prayers that are not answered the way we want them answered. That does not mean there is no answer. It's just a no. Or not yet. That's an answer. Framing it as unanswered leads to more problems than the convenience of using a simple phrase.
Habermas has an entire chapter entitled "What Do You Tell Yourself" that falls squarely in my area of expertise of the cross-roads of psychology and spirituality. His point in this chapter is that at times, "many of your problems have very little to do with God" (p. 108). Again, I agree with this statement. However, I dislike how he handles it.
He basically takes a cognitive therapy perspective about challenging false beliefs. Fair enough. I do that a lot in my blog. However, Habermas puts the whole problem and solution in our thinking. I disagree with this from a psychotherapy perspective and definitely from a spiritual perspective. While our thoughts definitely can cause problems, other elements of our psyche can, too.
He even moves into poor exegesis when he says, "the Bible tells you that you are free not to feel anger, not to hate, and not to return to others what they have given you" (p. 110). While transformation through Christ may make these things more likely, the one I do have major issue with is the freedom from anger. Anger is not bad. God gets angry. We should get angry at times.
In fact, Habermas takes such a strictly cognitive approach that he discounts feelings completely. He cites C.S. Lewis and asserts that "we must tell our emotions to take a hike" (p. 113). This is one of the statements for which I have the least tolerance. While our emotions can cause problems, they are also a blessing. The American church and the American people would do well to pay more attention to their honest and authentic emotions. If we did that, we may actually experience God more and perceive less silence.
With the focus of this blog on doubt and struggles, this is one of the most relevant reviews. When I saw the title and description, I jumped at the chance to review it, very excited with what I saw. I was hoping it would be a great resource to send people to when they are struggling or experiencing a dark night of the soul.
The description stated the book "gives us the freedom to ask our tough questions... and the wisdom to find the answers." This is the kind of thing I live on and love promoting. In the introduction, Habermas states that "what we tell ourselves is of utmost importance in terms of how we 'feel' about God's seeming silence" (p. xiii). I completely agree with that, as our anxiety about doubt often causes the problems. This anxiety prevents us from asking the tough questions, but rather let them sit and fester.
The problem is that the introduction is where the book stops being helpful. It transitions from a book that really could help people sit with the discomfort of experiencing silence from God into a book that truly fulfills the subtitle "what to do when it feels like He's giving you the silent treatment."
Habermas' proposition is that God does not give people the "silent treatment," but rather it is people's perceptions of God and his actions that make it appear like God is silent. While I agree that is often the case, this completely disregards authentic times that God may not be overtly speaking to us, specifically as in a dark night of the soul, in which God tends to be more passive.
Framing this experience as solely due to the individual's error not only invalidates the person's experience, but can make it worse. Therefore, I would not recommend this tome to anyone experiencing a dark night. The closest Habermas gets to describing a God-initiated silence is stating, "God's silence could also be a reprimand or time-out response" (p. 130). This can be true, but still puts blame on the individual in a negative way that is not congruent with a dark night.
Besides the poor framing of the book, the content overall is relatively good. It's just too focused on giving answers rather than really asking questions and struggling with the answers. I completely agree that we often expect God to work in ways that he does not always work. Habermas describes an Incarnational perspective very well, which I appreciate. He also talks about how our past, emotions, and thoughts can cloud our ability to see God at work. That's totally true. This book can be useful for people in those circumstances.
I had a couple of significant frustrations with some of the content, though:
Habermas frequently refers to unanswered prayers. While the Garth Brooks song Unanswered Prayers is one of my favorite songs, it is also one of the songs that annoys me the most. I think the concept of a prayer being unanswered is complete baloney. Yes, that is my theological perspective, but still. The way the term is often used is for prayers that are not answered the way we want them answered. That does not mean there is no answer. It's just a no. Or not yet. That's an answer. Framing it as unanswered leads to more problems than the convenience of using a simple phrase.
Habermas has an entire chapter entitled "What Do You Tell Yourself" that falls squarely in my area of expertise of the cross-roads of psychology and spirituality. His point in this chapter is that at times, "many of your problems have very little to do with God" (p. 108). Again, I agree with this statement. However, I dislike how he handles it.
He basically takes a cognitive therapy perspective about challenging false beliefs. Fair enough. I do that a lot in my blog. However, Habermas puts the whole problem and solution in our thinking. I disagree with this from a psychotherapy perspective and definitely from a spiritual perspective. While our thoughts definitely can cause problems, other elements of our psyche can, too.
He even moves into poor exegesis when he says, "the Bible tells you that you are free not to feel anger, not to hate, and not to return to others what they have given you" (p. 110). While transformation through Christ may make these things more likely, the one I do have major issue with is the freedom from anger. Anger is not bad. God gets angry. We should get angry at times.
In fact, Habermas takes such a strictly cognitive approach that he discounts feelings completely. He cites C.S. Lewis and asserts that "we must tell our emotions to take a hike" (p. 113). This is one of the statements for which I have the least tolerance. While our emotions can cause problems, they are also a blessing. The American church and the American people would do well to pay more attention to their honest and authentic emotions. If we did that, we may actually experience God more and perceive less silence.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Church as Celebration
Our new church community is trying to buy a building and the bank is making them do membership for that. In order to support them, we attended the class (membership would be another good topic for another time).
Last week, I talked about church as community and described how I felt more connected with others during non-large-group gatherings. Interestingly, the meeting addressed this (not my blog directly, of course...). One of the things said is that church is not just Sunday gatherings (y'all have heard me say that for a while). They really emphasized the importance of small groups and that that is where the community is experienced and built.
However, they also said Sundays are important, but not for community. They framed these gatherings are important for celebration. This is a new way of thinking about such gatherings for me. I really like this balance and think it makes a lot of sense. That helps me find those gatherings as being more valuable when I was getting close to giving up on such gatherings...
What do you think?
Last week, I talked about church as community and described how I felt more connected with others during non-large-group gatherings. Interestingly, the meeting addressed this (not my blog directly, of course...). One of the things said is that church is not just Sunday gatherings (y'all have heard me say that for a while). They really emphasized the importance of small groups and that that is where the community is experienced and built.
However, they also said Sundays are important, but not for community. They framed these gatherings are important for celebration. This is a new way of thinking about such gatherings for me. I really like this balance and think it makes a lot of sense. That helps me find those gatherings as being more valuable when I was getting close to giving up on such gatherings...
What do you think?
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Article Round-up 4/13/10
Here's some recent good articles:
Suicide and Facing Despair. This is an excellent article on suicide, depression, and the church.
Allow For Space In The Music. I just lectured on trauma and the dark night of the soul, and this hits a lot of similar points of my recommendations of validating people's experiences and sitting with the pain. This just says it a lot more eloquently. :)
Who Are the De-Churched (Part 2). A good follow-up to an earlier article. The focus on the problems with a moralistic emphasis makes this read particularly worthwhile.
Going Into Full-Time Ministry. This does a nice job of explaining that ministry is not just formal ministry, like that of a pastor. In fact, everything we do is ministry.
Getting Back to Basics. A nice, short article reminding readers that ARE negotiable elements in theology and that we need to be generous with others.
Suicide and Facing Despair. This is an excellent article on suicide, depression, and the church.
Allow For Space In The Music. I just lectured on trauma and the dark night of the soul, and this hits a lot of similar points of my recommendations of validating people's experiences and sitting with the pain. This just says it a lot more eloquently. :)
Who Are the De-Churched (Part 2). A good follow-up to an earlier article. The focus on the problems with a moralistic emphasis makes this read particularly worthwhile.
Going Into Full-Time Ministry. This does a nice job of explaining that ministry is not just formal ministry, like that of a pastor. In fact, everything we do is ministry.
Getting Back to Basics. A nice, short article reminding readers that ARE negotiable elements in theology and that we need to be generous with others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)