This title is a line borrowed from the brilliant philosopher, Peter Kreeft. But it's not the subject of this post. Sex is. Heaven is not. What about sex? It is both everything and nothing, all at the same time.
"We live in such a relentlessly consumer-driven culture that we begin to see ourselves as products on display." - Frederica Mathewes-Green
There are few social critics and theological thinkers are wonderfully poetic as Frederic Matthewes-Green. She does well with the written word, but she also does well with the spoken. Her talk on the meaning of sex at the Veritas Forum in February 2011, is relentlessly engaging and consistently thought provoking.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
What Must I Do to Be Saved?
I am a big fan of Professor Scot McKnight ever since I saw him speak at a Youth Specialties conference awhile back. I love his "The Blue Parakeet" and "Jesus Creed". Both of them are challenging, thought-provoking works which will lay assault to sleepy spiritual apathy. Now he's written "The King Jesus Gospel" and he is blogging about questions his readers are asking.
The question of what comprises the gospel and how we are compelled to respond to it hits us where we live and concerns questions I have been asking quite a bit recently.
I was taught that salvation comes only after reciting the so-called Sinner's Prayer. McKnight says that this prayer "emerges from the soterian gospel which has for years invited people to pray a prayer to 'receive Christ' or to 'ask God’s forgiveness in Jesus Christ' etc." His answer is worth reading.
The question of what comprises the gospel and how we are compelled to respond to it hits us where we live and concerns questions I have been asking quite a bit recently.
I was taught that salvation comes only after reciting the so-called Sinner's Prayer. McKnight says that this prayer "emerges from the soterian gospel which has for years invited people to pray a prayer to 'receive Christ' or to 'ask God’s forgiveness in Jesus Christ' etc." His answer is worth reading.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
It's everyone else's fault
Man's inability to understand his own role in his troubles has been part of our character makeup ever since Adam blamed Eve. It must be someone else or something else outside of me which caused this. And while there are always exogenous factors which affect our circumstances, they only tell part of our tragic story. This can be especially true in relationships, where misheard words and misinterpreted motives are the stuff of situation comedies and Lifetime movies. We do not always recognize the role we play in the relational hurricanes in which we find ourselves.
"All I said was" and "I didn't do anything to deserve that" come to our lips, first, last, and always, it seems.
This came home to me quite recently in a conversation with a friend I love. In discussing his younger brother's involvement with a group of the elder's friends, the elder told me, "It's just that I can't stand him. He rubs me the wrong way. He is so annoying. If he were only like So-and-so (another of the younger set, whose own older brother is a friend of my young friends), it would be fine. So-and-so is cool. My brother is so disagreeable."
And that got me thinking. Not just about sibling loathing (somewhat common in teenage years). But also about the role that peers, associates, and culture plays on our own character and tendency toward loathesomeness.
Here's the thing that stuck me. So-and-so and his older brother get along great. The older brother genuinely loves and likes the younger. He protects him. He edifies him. He encourages him. Moreover, the family dynamic seems to be one of mutual admiration, respect, and love. It's no wonder that So-and-so is "cool" (as my young friend said). He is surrounded by people who lovingly guide him, encourage him, respect him, and like him. Affection and mutual respect rule their house. What else would result from that brew (absent mental disorder) than a well-adjusted kid who's cool?
So my young friend, blithely ignorant of his active role in his younger brother's loathesomeness, turns up the heat on the sauce by being consistently disagreeable toward him. It must be the younger brother's fault. After all, I have tried to be nice. I did nothing wrong. It's not me. It's him.
And our ever-nagging, ever whispering pride, sitting alertly on our shoulder, tells us to be teflon, to not let correction abide, to resist any thought that we ourselves may bear some (most?) of the responsibility for our own relational hurricanes. May our God have mercy on us! And I think of DC Talk's words as I try to bring my own sickness under control,
"All I said was" and "I didn't do anything to deserve that" come to our lips, first, last, and always, it seems.
This came home to me quite recently in a conversation with a friend I love. In discussing his younger brother's involvement with a group of the elder's friends, the elder told me, "It's just that I can't stand him. He rubs me the wrong way. He is so annoying. If he were only like So-and-so (another of the younger set, whose own older brother is a friend of my young friends), it would be fine. So-and-so is cool. My brother is so disagreeable."
And that got me thinking. Not just about sibling loathing (somewhat common in teenage years). But also about the role that peers, associates, and culture plays on our own character and tendency toward loathesomeness.
Here's the thing that stuck me. So-and-so and his older brother get along great. The older brother genuinely loves and likes the younger. He protects him. He edifies him. He encourages him. Moreover, the family dynamic seems to be one of mutual admiration, respect, and love. It's no wonder that So-and-so is "cool" (as my young friend said). He is surrounded by people who lovingly guide him, encourage him, respect him, and like him. Affection and mutual respect rule their house. What else would result from that brew (absent mental disorder) than a well-adjusted kid who's cool?
So my young friend, blithely ignorant of his active role in his younger brother's loathesomeness, turns up the heat on the sauce by being consistently disagreeable toward him. It must be the younger brother's fault. After all, I have tried to be nice. I did nothing wrong. It's not me. It's him.
And our ever-nagging, ever whispering pride, sitting alertly on our shoulder, tells us to be teflon, to not let correction abide, to resist any thought that we ourselves may bear some (most?) of the responsibility for our own relational hurricanes. May our God have mercy on us! And I think of DC Talk's words as I try to bring my own sickness under control,
Shirtsleeves to Shirtsleeves
There's an old expression, "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations". This is an American form of a Lancashire proverb, “there’s nobbut three generations atween a clog and clog.” Our changing fashion sense may have rendered this old proverb less meaningful in the day of business casual and casual casual (even the CEO is called "dude" and "buddy" and everyone goes by his first name).
So, what does it mean?
The expression captures the waxing and waning of family wealth, the hardworking grandfather who rises from working class drudgery (i.e., wearing working class shirtsleeves) to leave a successful enterprise to his son, who squanders it (after all, the son had it handed to him and did not know the toil and sacrifice of the grandfather). By the time the grandson comes along, they are back to the working class (or shirtsleeves by the third generation). The Scottish render this proverb as "The father buys, the son builds, the grandchild sells, and his son begs."
Like all proverbs, this is not necessarily an ironclad rule so much as it is an observation. It happens, but it does not ALWAYS happen. Beyond the world of work, are there lessons this proverb can yield for the American church?
Barna (and others) often report on church-raised kids who wander from the faith. Why? And perhaps the more salient question is, if this is undersirable, how can we as parents prevent it?
So, what does it mean?
The expression captures the waxing and waning of family wealth, the hardworking grandfather who rises from working class drudgery (i.e., wearing working class shirtsleeves) to leave a successful enterprise to his son, who squanders it (after all, the son had it handed to him and did not know the toil and sacrifice of the grandfather). By the time the grandson comes along, they are back to the working class (or shirtsleeves by the third generation). The Scottish render this proverb as "The father buys, the son builds, the grandchild sells, and his son begs."
Like all proverbs, this is not necessarily an ironclad rule so much as it is an observation. It happens, but it does not ALWAYS happen. Beyond the world of work, are there lessons this proverb can yield for the American church?
Barna (and others) often report on church-raised kids who wander from the faith. Why? And perhaps the more salient question is, if this is undersirable, how can we as parents prevent it?
Amnesia
Why do children raised in the church walk away from it when they hit college? A crucial question which has no simple answers (though Barna takes a shot at answering it). And asking the kids who have turned away from the faith of their fathers why they have turned will yield useful answers. But how certain should anyone be about self-reported motives?
One of the wandering youth, in explaining why he "got rid of church" explained: "I would ask questions, and they would just say it's not important, or have faith." Really? His parents, pastor, and youth leaders really said his questions were not important, that he should just have faith? Hmmm, I suppose it's possible. But I know lots of parents, and I know lots of youth leaders. And I do not know any of them to be the sort to dismiss questions in this way. It's just not in their character.
So, is the kid lying? Not exactly. But memory is a tricky, tricky thing. Especially our subjective memory. We can seldom remember with any degree of accuracy the events that happen to us. Does anyone remember the M*A*S*H episode where Hawkeye is Court Martialed for punching Frank Burns? It's one classic example of subjective memory errors (played with comedic affect). The brilliant Nassem Talib calls it "retrospective distortion". Chris Nolan made an entire movie with memory as the theme.
So what do we make of kids leaving church once they leave the nest? Are there questions which are not answered. Perhaps. But could it also be that these kids have been conditioned to expect certainty and satisfaction of all desires? Let's face it. Since the Baby Boomers moved to the Baby Busters and beyond, we have become an "instant gratification" culture. We no longer seem able to cope with disappointment, ambiguity, and delayed gratification.
The poor kid probably did not get satisfactory answers to his questions. But that may have more to do with the nature of the questions than with the answers themselves. Some questions simply do not have good answers this side of the veil. And we do a grave disservice to our kids by leading them to expect that every little question they whine at us will be answered by the end of the show.
So, what's the
Christian parents who attempt to raise their children in the fear and admonition of the LORD are understandably concerned with wayward sons who choose different paths than the ones on which their parents set them.
One of the wandering youth, in explaining why he "got rid of church" explained: "I would ask questions, and they would just say it's not important, or have faith." Really? His parents, pastor, and youth leaders really said his questions were not important, that he should just have faith? Hmmm, I suppose it's possible. But I know lots of parents, and I know lots of youth leaders. And I do not know any of them to be the sort to dismiss questions in this way. It's just not in their character.
So, is the kid lying? Not exactly. But memory is a tricky, tricky thing. Especially our subjective memory. We can seldom remember with any degree of accuracy the events that happen to us. Does anyone remember the M*A*S*H episode where Hawkeye is Court Martialed for punching Frank Burns? It's one classic example of subjective memory errors (played with comedic affect). The brilliant Nassem Talib calls it "retrospective distortion". Chris Nolan made an entire movie with memory as the theme.
So what do we make of kids leaving church once they leave the nest? Are there questions which are not answered. Perhaps. But could it also be that these kids have been conditioned to expect certainty and satisfaction of all desires? Let's face it. Since the Baby Boomers moved to the Baby Busters and beyond, we have become an "instant gratification" culture. We no longer seem able to cope with disappointment, ambiguity, and delayed gratification.
The poor kid probably did not get satisfactory answers to his questions. But that may have more to do with the nature of the questions than with the answers themselves. Some questions simply do not have good answers this side of the veil. And we do a grave disservice to our kids by leading them to expect that every little question they whine at us will be answered by the end of the show.
So, what's the
Christian parents who attempt to raise their children in the fear and admonition of the LORD are understandably concerned with wayward sons who choose different paths than the ones on which their parents set them.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Wisdom from the Batman
Christopher Nolan's brilliant "Batman Begins" has me wondering about this walk of faith. As a long-time Evangelical of Reformed Presbybapticostal training, I have been thoroughly schooled in fundamental doctrines of the Church. Oh, no. Not the creeds. No creed but the Bible and all that for me. But watching Nolan's film again with scales removed from my eyes has gotten me speculating on the nature of salvation and eternal life.
Strange, right? I know.
So, at one point in the film, Bruce Wayne tells his un-requited love Rachel that his playboy image is not who he really is on the inside. Her reply to him is echoed by the Batman back to her:
"It's not who I am underneath, but what I *do* that defines me."
Evangelicals spend quite a bit of effort mastering "who they are on the inside." Learn the key doctrines. Live a morally pure life. Win souls for Christ by telling people that they are destined for Hell and that Jesus is the ONLY way out. Okay, granted, most evangelicals are more nuanced than this. You might find some of them lovingly presenting the famous Four Spiritual Laws. Or you might observe them attempting to build real friendships and relationships with those on the outside. But sometimes, the good news proclaiming is as heavy as a sledge hammer.
All of these approaches are saying, at the base, the same thing about the gospel: you are a sinner heading for Hell without Jesus. As Paul says in Acts, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
But held up against other verses, it would seem that our road to eternal life is not simply a matter of what we think. What did our Savior say in Matthew's text?
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left… Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world… “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
What is it that separates them? Not the correctness of their doctrine. Not the recitation of the sinner's prayer. It's just as the Batman said: it's what we do that defines us.
Strange, right? I know.
So, at one point in the film, Bruce Wayne tells his un-requited love Rachel that his playboy image is not who he really is on the inside. Her reply to him is echoed by the Batman back to her:
"It's not who I am underneath, but what I *do* that defines me."
Evangelicals spend quite a bit of effort mastering "who they are on the inside." Learn the key doctrines. Live a morally pure life. Win souls for Christ by telling people that they are destined for Hell and that Jesus is the ONLY way out. Okay, granted, most evangelicals are more nuanced than this. You might find some of them lovingly presenting the famous Four Spiritual Laws. Or you might observe them attempting to build real friendships and relationships with those on the outside. But sometimes, the good news proclaiming is as heavy as a sledge hammer.
All of these approaches are saying, at the base, the same thing about the gospel: you are a sinner heading for Hell without Jesus. As Paul says in Acts, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
But held up against other verses, it would seem that our road to eternal life is not simply a matter of what we think. What did our Savior say in Matthew's text?
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left… Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world… “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
What is it that separates them? Not the correctness of their doctrine. Not the recitation of the sinner's prayer. It's just as the Batman said: it's what we do that defines us.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Is it better to look good or feel good?
Billy Crystal as Fernando Lamas entered the cultural zeitgeist with his famous: "It is better to look good than feel good. And darling, you look marvelous." Which gets me wondering: does God care more about how you FEEL about what you do, or just about what you do?
Jesus tells the parable of the two sons whose father asks them to work. One says he will (doubtless cheerfully), but he does not. The other says he will not (perhaps with a so-called spirit of rebellion), but he repents and then does the work. Which son obeyed his father? Well, the second one did. So, in this story, the actions spoke louder to the father (and to the audience) than the words did.
At the end of the age, when the LORD separates sheep from goats, what is the standard? By what set of criteria will the goats be consigned to outer darkness, and the sheep welcomed into reward? The Messiah seems to separate them by criteria of actions.
This is, of course, a very Jewish way of thinking, as opposed to a more Greek construct. Abstract concepts like "love" and "faith" are expressed in concrete ways. Abraham had faith, we are told over and over again, and we know this not because of what he thought, but rather because of what he did. Jesus loves us, and we know this not because he tells us this (or writes us beautiful sonnets testifying to this truth). Rather we know this because of what He did: he died in our place, took on Himself the pain we deserved. He, in other words, demonstrated what he truly felt by what He did.
So, is it better to look good or to feel good? Put another way, is it better to act right or feel right?
Jesus tells the parable of the two sons whose father asks them to work. One says he will (doubtless cheerfully), but he does not. The other says he will not (perhaps with a so-called spirit of rebellion), but he repents and then does the work. Which son obeyed his father? Well, the second one did. So, in this story, the actions spoke louder to the father (and to the audience) than the words did.
At the end of the age, when the LORD separates sheep from goats, what is the standard? By what set of criteria will the goats be consigned to outer darkness, and the sheep welcomed into reward? The Messiah seems to separate them by criteria of actions.
This is, of course, a very Jewish way of thinking, as opposed to a more Greek construct. Abstract concepts like "love" and "faith" are expressed in concrete ways. Abraham had faith, we are told over and over again, and we know this not because of what he thought, but rather because of what he did. Jesus loves us, and we know this not because he tells us this (or writes us beautiful sonnets testifying to this truth). Rather we know this because of what He did: he died in our place, took on Himself the pain we deserved. He, in other words, demonstrated what he truly felt by what He did.
So, is it better to look good or to feel good? Put another way, is it better to act right or feel right?
Friday, September 30, 2011
Lean to the left, lean to the right...
Stand up, Sit down, vote, vote, vote
A friend who is a pastor referenced an article by Jim Wallis at the Huffington Post which only reinforces the difficulty I have with the easy generalizing trap we sometimes fall into. What does it mean to be "evangelical"?
The good news -- the Good News -- is that Jesus came to save sinners, of whom I am chief. But did He come to save me so that I am part of His club (yay! I am now IN! Heaven is my reward!)? Or did He save me so that I can be part of His movement which is supposed to remake this world?
What do we do after we believe? And how then should we live?
Am I left or am I right? It's not that simple. Well, maybe it's simple, but not easy.
A friend who is a pastor referenced an article by Jim Wallis at the Huffington Post which only reinforces the difficulty I have with the easy generalizing trap we sometimes fall into. What does it mean to be "evangelical"?
The good news -- the Good News -- is that Jesus came to save sinners, of whom I am chief. But did He come to save me so that I am part of His club (yay! I am now IN! Heaven is my reward!)? Or did He save me so that I can be part of His movement which is supposed to remake this world?
What do we do after we believe? And how then should we live?
Am I left or am I right? It's not that simple. Well, maybe it's simple, but not easy.
Holy Heck, Batman, I think I may be emergent!
The Emergent Church
OK, what even does this mean? There are so many diverse creatures tagged with this label that pegging them down categorically is pretty much impossible. But like the gnostics from long ago (or from today, even), there appear to be some common themes. Among them seem to be a commitment to social justice, to LIVING out one's faith explicitly and openly. The emergents (to risk generalizing) seem to value RIGHT LIVING over RIGHT THINKING (which of course presents a false dichotomy -- one cannot actually LIVE rightly without also THINKING rightly). But the emphasis would seem to be about what you do, rather than what you think.
Hmmm, this reminds me of something. Oh, I know, it kind of sort of sounds like Jesus. You can read about it in His Bible:
"He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?"
I just wish they did not play so loosey-goosey with sound doctrine.
OK, what even does this mean? There are so many diverse creatures tagged with this label that pegging them down categorically is pretty much impossible. But like the gnostics from long ago (or from today, even), there appear to be some common themes. Among them seem to be a commitment to social justice, to LIVING out one's faith explicitly and openly. The emergents (to risk generalizing) seem to value RIGHT LIVING over RIGHT THINKING (which of course presents a false dichotomy -- one cannot actually LIVE rightly without also THINKING rightly). But the emphasis would seem to be about what you do, rather than what you think.
Hmmm, this reminds me of something. Oh, I know, it kind of sort of sounds like Jesus. You can read about it in His Bible:
"He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?"
I just wish they did not play so loosey-goosey with sound doctrine.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Losing the team
I love observing coaches, whether in sport or business, whether skilled or not. The work of coaching is fascinating: the ability -- or lack thereof -- to bring out the best in the team you have been given. The cajoling and encouraging. The teaching. What's remarkable about great coaches, apart from the realization that they are seldom best-in-class in the endeavors they coach, is their consistent ability to communicate clearly and well with their players.
There are occasions, though, when even great coaches lose their way, when the team stops listening, when players under-perform en masse. It's sad but true. They call this turn of events "losing the team". They just stop listening. Sad to see when it happens.
There are occasions, though, when even great coaches lose their way, when the team stops listening, when players under-perform en masse. It's sad but true. They call this turn of events "losing the team". They just stop listening. Sad to see when it happens.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Chesteron's genius
G.K. was both prolific and brilliant. How rare a combination that is. Not content to simply invent the genre of crime mystery (pace Sir Arthur Doyle), he filled almost literally entire bookshelves worth of philosophical and religious works.
How about a favorite quote?
"Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair."
Sounds like something an Eastern mind -- a Jewish mind -- would come up with. It reminds me that just as "faith without works is dead" and "love without actions" is dead, religion without love is a whitewashed tomb.
How about a favorite quote?
"Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair."
Sounds like something an Eastern mind -- a Jewish mind -- would come up with. It reminds me that just as "faith without works is dead" and "love without actions" is dead, religion without love is a whitewashed tomb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)