Since I have my summer off (don't hate me cause I'm beautiful) I decided I could now go to an early morning bible study that my job usually precludes me from attending.
In one of the first emails from the group they used a word I didn't know (not a good sign) - dispensationalism. Actually, I had a general idea what it meant, but since isms of any sort make me squeemish, I figured I better raise my hand and ask the teacher to use it in a sentence.
One of the guys in the group emailed back a well detailed explanation of dispensationalism and its history in the church. I won't repeat it here but, in short, it is an explanation of how God has dealt with man throughout history. The writer also presented some of the alternatives to this idea.
People often cling doggedly to one of the many sides of this issue, but as I read I noticed I could see them as nothing more than possible- and incomplete- models.
It reminded me of Galileo. He got into a lot of trouble for proposing a model of the universe that contradicted the church of Rome. He felt that the existing model (Earth centered) did not explain the skies or make predictions as well as his model (Sun centered). In the end, though Galileo's model was an improvement, it was still incomplete. I wonder if he would have been slow to surrender his model if he had lived to see it being supplanted.
It seems to me that all of our denominations, tenants, religions, and beliefs are nothing more than our attempts to develop a model to explain what we see when we look at God. Perhaps they are also our attempt to make Him predictable.
Sometimes models seem to contradict each other. If you have ever caught Brian Greene on PBS, you may have heard him explain the apparent contradictions of String Theory and Relativity. String Theory seems to work great at the quantum level but doesn't help at the cosmic level. Relativity works to explain the cosmos, but breaks down as we head toward the quantum level. Men like Stephen Hawking would like to find a single, unified theory to explain everything.
Science is good at holding two apparently contradictory theories. Men of Science know that there is more to know.
Theologians (and religious folks in general) tend to find it very difficult to hold two theories of God that seem to be in opposition. The tendency is to champion one model while belittling proponents of the other.
If we have yet to find a unified model for physics, why would we think we could develop a unified model for God?
For myself, I tend to hold my models of God very loosely. I suspect that God was referring to our models when he told us not to "make any graven image". I don't know that he was as concerned with little clay images to sit on our shelves, but rather our tendency to want lock God down, to quantify Him, to point and say, "This is who He is!"
The Spirit blows wherever it pleases... He will not be contained.
In the end, I think our models tell us a lot more about ourselves than they do about God.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Who is responsible?
I know there is a thin line between stating reality and making excuses, but there is a line. I don't want to dismiss problems as being unsolvable, but I think there is room for calling things as they are and not sitting in an endless cloud of idealism where no true changes are made.
I have sat through countless seminars and meetings in my 15 years as a teacher where the presenter insists that we can have across the board success with students. If curriculum is done right, if the instruction is delivered properly, if the environment is correct, etc... then EVERY child will succeed.
Do you notice anything missing in the equation?
The child's responsibility.
However, if you say that, you will be accused of making excuses. After all, if the child is unmotivated, then it is the teacher's job to motivate the student. As far as these theorists are concerned, the child plays no role in his or her outcome.
From personal experience, I reject this premise. I was the classic trouble maker as a boy. I never got anything above a C prior to 10th grade. School was at the bottom of a short list of meaningless priorities. Looking back, I recognize that many of my teachers did all that they could. They employed the right strategies, they cared, they intervened... yada, yada, yada. I simply didn't want to do it. Period. End of story.
They were powerless.
In the summer prior to my 10th grade year, that all changed. Perhaps someday on this blog I will write out my testimony. Suffice to say, I saw de' light.
I came back the first quarter of my 10th grade year and nailed 4 A's and two B's. My teachers and principal were shocked, but they had nothing to do with my turnaround. I pulled those grades because I wanted to. Period. End of story.
I believe I must do ALL that I can to help my students, but they must put forth effort. Their will affects their destiny. Like the ghosts and the Bright Ones in Lewis's The Great Divorce, the student can put nearly all of their weight on me but they must still walk.
If we take all responsibility in the equation away from the students, should we then be surprised if they approach life irresponsibly?
I have sat through countless seminars and meetings in my 15 years as a teacher where the presenter insists that we can have across the board success with students. If curriculum is done right, if the instruction is delivered properly, if the environment is correct, etc... then EVERY child will succeed.
Do you notice anything missing in the equation?
The child's responsibility.
However, if you say that, you will be accused of making excuses. After all, if the child is unmotivated, then it is the teacher's job to motivate the student. As far as these theorists are concerned, the child plays no role in his or her outcome.
From personal experience, I reject this premise. I was the classic trouble maker as a boy. I never got anything above a C prior to 10th grade. School was at the bottom of a short list of meaningless priorities. Looking back, I recognize that many of my teachers did all that they could. They employed the right strategies, they cared, they intervened... yada, yada, yada. I simply didn't want to do it. Period. End of story.
They were powerless.
In the summer prior to my 10th grade year, that all changed. Perhaps someday on this blog I will write out my testimony. Suffice to say, I saw de' light.
I came back the first quarter of my 10th grade year and nailed 4 A's and two B's. My teachers and principal were shocked, but they had nothing to do with my turnaround. I pulled those grades because I wanted to. Period. End of story.
I believe I must do ALL that I can to help my students, but they must put forth effort. Their will affects their destiny. Like the ghosts and the Bright Ones in Lewis's The Great Divorce, the student can put nearly all of their weight on me but they must still walk.
If we take all responsibility in the equation away from the students, should we then be surprised if they approach life irresponsibly?
Saturday, May 26, 2007
An Interview with Tony Campolo
This is a great interview with Tony Campolo. He really outlines where Christianity should be going and what it should look like. I don't think that the majority of Christianity at the moment reflects his views, but I hope a generation from now they are commonplace.
Friday, May 18, 2007
What is your theological worldview?
This is an interesting quiz I found on another blog. I am sure it is in no way scientific, but I would say that it pegged me pretty well. I would probably be labeled a postmodern/emergent. Definitely putting Charismatic at the bottom of my list was spot on. I am surprised even 11 % of my theology could go there (must be the subliminal influence of growing up in charismatic circles).
The strong holiness end comes from growing up on Keith Green music. :)
I have no idea what Neo Orthodox even means.
The more I learn about reformed theology, the more it gives me the willies. They are brothers in Christ, but too depressing.
I disagree with the author's definition of postmodern. I in no way feel alienated from older forms of church, nor would most post moderns (I think). I find the reverence and touch of mysticism refreshing.
Anyway, give it a whirl and post your outcome in the comments section.
The strong holiness end comes from growing up on Keith Green music. :)
I have no idea what Neo Orthodox even means.
The more I learn about reformed theology, the more it gives me the willies. They are brothers in Christ, but too depressing.
I disagree with the author's definition of postmodern. I in no way feel alienated from older forms of church, nor would most post moderns (I think). I find the reverence and touch of mysticism refreshing.
Anyway, give it a whirl and post your outcome in the comments section.
You scored as Emergent/Postmodern. You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.
What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com |
Thursday, May 17, 2007
The best blog on Jerry Falwell
I had a lot of thoughts on Jerry Falwell's passing. Though I had many, many disagreements with him and I felt he hindered more often than he helped; I still wished he and his family peace and I pray that a merciful Father embraces him now.
The gentleman over at Subversive Christianity had one of the best commentaries on Falwell's passing. Normally, I would simply link to it, but the blog will be erased as of May 20th. So I am going to paste it here. If you read this prior to that date, I suggest you head over there for some of the best spiritual commentary around.
May Light Perpetual shine on him
Jerry Falwell's dead.
It's hard to believe, at least for people of my generation. I was born two years before Falwell founded Thomas Road Baptist Church, and the Moral Majority was a major player on the American scene from my mid-twenties to my mid-thirties. Falwell's been a national presence during my entire lifetime. His death is strange, like the sudden disappearance of a familiar landmark. As my wife exclaimed when I told her Falwell had died: "Dead!? Jerry Falwell?! Are you serious?!"
The reactions to Falwell's passing are, I suppose, predictable. He was hated and he was loved. Those who hated him are chortling with delight. Some of their responses are downright mean (Goldbricker and the comment thread on Atheist Revolution), others (No More Hornets) joyous but a bit more precise in their reasons for celebrating, and some (Salon and Feminary) measured and reflective. Those who loved him--for example, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and folks at Liberty University--are erring in the opposite direction by offering encomiums of Falwell that whitewash the genuine harm to others--and, I fear, to God--that some of his actions and pronouncements inflicted. Both kinds of responses are understandable.
But both are also unsettling because in their rush to vilify or sanctify Falwell, they don't bother to try to see him as a human being. This failure or refusal only encourages an "us" versus "them" divide between Falwell groupies and Falwell loathers and, more importantly, between the worldviews they represent.
Falwell's understanding of what it means to be a Christian strikes me as so obviously broken, so obviously defensive and exclusionary and judgmental, that I can only conclude it was embraced by a man who was suffering from wounds that cut deeply into his soul. A man who could condemn and thunder jeremiads as well as Falwell could is either a total charlatan or someone who's in a state of chronic anxiety, fear, anger, self-doubt, and envy--a man who exudes ill-being rather than well-being. I don't think Falwell was a fake. He was a victim whose personal suffering drove him to embrace a spirituality and value system that victimized others. He was a guy whose own wounds drove him into the arms of a god who demanded that he wound others. When I think of him in these terms, I realize that Falwell deserves our compassion more than our hatred or reverence. Nor do I mean this in a holier-than-thou, patronizing way. Because my guess is that many of the demons that haunted Falwell haunt us as well. We may not have the clout that Falwell did, and so our destructiveness may be on a less public scale. But it's real nonetheless. Admitting this doesn't whitewash Falwell's life. But it does begin the process of bridging the "us" and "them" divide.
I so dislike what Falwell did to Christianity in the U.S. But I do so hope that his demons have been at last exorcised. And even though the words stick in my throat--a reflection of the thousands of demons that inhabit my own soul--I say (and pray that I might say it sincerely): May light perpetual shine on my brother, Jerry.
The gentleman over at Subversive Christianity had one of the best commentaries on Falwell's passing. Normally, I would simply link to it, but the blog will be erased as of May 20th. So I am going to paste it here. If you read this prior to that date, I suggest you head over there for some of the best spiritual commentary around.
May Light Perpetual shine on him
Jerry Falwell's dead.
It's hard to believe, at least for people of my generation. I was born two years before Falwell founded Thomas Road Baptist Church, and the Moral Majority was a major player on the American scene from my mid-twenties to my mid-thirties. Falwell's been a national presence during my entire lifetime. His death is strange, like the sudden disappearance of a familiar landmark. As my wife exclaimed when I told her Falwell had died: "Dead!? Jerry Falwell?! Are you serious?!"
The reactions to Falwell's passing are, I suppose, predictable. He was hated and he was loved. Those who hated him are chortling with delight. Some of their responses are downright mean (Goldbricker and the comment thread on Atheist Revolution), others (No More Hornets) joyous but a bit more precise in their reasons for celebrating, and some (Salon and Feminary) measured and reflective. Those who loved him--for example, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and folks at Liberty University--are erring in the opposite direction by offering encomiums of Falwell that whitewash the genuine harm to others--and, I fear, to God--that some of his actions and pronouncements inflicted. Both kinds of responses are understandable.
But both are also unsettling because in their rush to vilify or sanctify Falwell, they don't bother to try to see him as a human being. This failure or refusal only encourages an "us" versus "them" divide between Falwell groupies and Falwell loathers and, more importantly, between the worldviews they represent.
Falwell's understanding of what it means to be a Christian strikes me as so obviously broken, so obviously defensive and exclusionary and judgmental, that I can only conclude it was embraced by a man who was suffering from wounds that cut deeply into his soul. A man who could condemn and thunder jeremiads as well as Falwell could is either a total charlatan or someone who's in a state of chronic anxiety, fear, anger, self-doubt, and envy--a man who exudes ill-being rather than well-being. I don't think Falwell was a fake. He was a victim whose personal suffering drove him to embrace a spirituality and value system that victimized others. He was a guy whose own wounds drove him into the arms of a god who demanded that he wound others. When I think of him in these terms, I realize that Falwell deserves our compassion more than our hatred or reverence. Nor do I mean this in a holier-than-thou, patronizing way. Because my guess is that many of the demons that haunted Falwell haunt us as well. We may not have the clout that Falwell did, and so our destructiveness may be on a less public scale. But it's real nonetheless. Admitting this doesn't whitewash Falwell's life. But it does begin the process of bridging the "us" and "them" divide.
I so dislike what Falwell did to Christianity in the U.S. But I do so hope that his demons have been at last exorcised. And even though the words stick in my throat--a reflection of the thousands of demons that inhabit my own soul--I say (and pray that I might say it sincerely): May light perpetual shine on my brother, Jerry.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Hope and Obstacles by Brian Mclaren
I have listened to this talk by Brian Mclaren about 10 times in the past month or so. In it, he outlines some of the challenges that have faced the Church in the recent past, as well as the hope and path for the Church in the future. He addresses the relationship of the independent evangelical churches to the mainline churches. Through the strengthening of these ties, he speaks of hope for a post-christian world.
"The Protestant history has been the history of downward expansion... The interesting thing that tends to happen is that each level of the Church denies the legitimacy of the levels above it... or below it. But what I would like to suggest [is that] a Deep Ecclesiology is [an] acknowledging [of] the Church and honoring the Church in all of its forms. And instead of arguing about which narrow band is legitimate; just assume that God has lower standards than we do and is willing to bless people that we would never bless... if we were God." ~ Brian Mclaren
Click Here
"The Protestant history has been the history of downward expansion... The interesting thing that tends to happen is that each level of the Church denies the legitimacy of the levels above it... or below it. But what I would like to suggest [is that] a Deep Ecclesiology is [an] acknowledging [of] the Church and honoring the Church in all of its forms. And instead of arguing about which narrow band is legitimate; just assume that God has lower standards than we do and is willing to bless people that we would never bless... if we were God." ~ Brian Mclaren
Click Here
Friday, April 27, 2007
Tale of the Body Thief
For me, reading Anne Rice's Vampire novels was always a spiritual experience. The way she would wrestle out questions about life, morals, and God through her characters left me in wonder.
I was particularly drawn to her story "The Tale of the Body Thief". In it the vampire Lestat, after hundreds of years of being a vampire, longs to experience human feelings again. He is gifted with the opportunity by a gentleman who can swap souls. He agrees to a 24 hour switch.
Within moments of the transformation, he regrets his decision. The pressure in his bowels revolts him. His bad breath makes him nauseous. He is overwhelmed by the limitations of his new body. The simplest tasks require so much effort. He desires nothing more than to reclaim his vampiric body with its' preternatural strength, senses, and eternal youth.
As I read it, I wondered if Jesus experienced anything like that; going from immortal to mortal, from timeless to present, limitless to limited. What was that like?
I read a poem on a blog recently that addressed this question. I think in general I am a little too boorish to appreciate poetry properly, but this one really spoke to me.
Click here.
I was particularly drawn to her story "The Tale of the Body Thief". In it the vampire Lestat, after hundreds of years of being a vampire, longs to experience human feelings again. He is gifted with the opportunity by a gentleman who can swap souls. He agrees to a 24 hour switch.
Within moments of the transformation, he regrets his decision. The pressure in his bowels revolts him. His bad breath makes him nauseous. He is overwhelmed by the limitations of his new body. The simplest tasks require so much effort. He desires nothing more than to reclaim his vampiric body with its' preternatural strength, senses, and eternal youth.
As I read it, I wondered if Jesus experienced anything like that; going from immortal to mortal, from timeless to present, limitless to limited. What was that like?
I read a poem on a blog recently that addressed this question. I think in general I am a little too boorish to appreciate poetry properly, but this one really spoke to me.
Click here.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Significant Destabilizing Event
I read a really great post this week where a gentleman described in 11 steps how he left his faith and was brought in to something better. Although we did not share the same starting points in terms of faith, his journey resonates with me. As I poured over his list, I kept thinking, "Yep...MmmHmm... been there... did that one". I want to share some of his steps in terms of my experience. I think anyone who leaves a paradigm of some kind will go through similar steps.
Step 1 - Blissful Ignorance
He states that this is the step where, "we see all opposition as evil, sin, 'the adversary', tempting people to stray from the truth." Growing up charismatic, I learned that we were right and everyone else was wrong. Since we believed in the "gifts of the spirit" we were "Full Gospel" (so by definition, everyone else was only "part gospel"). Nearly everyone else was considered "other", so we believed we had a lot of opposition trying to water down or destroy our truth.
Step 2 - Niggling Suspicions
Here he states that we start to see that the opposition may hold something of value and words like "perhaps" enter our mind. These started for me when I joined Bible Quizzing in my early teens. I was learning the books of Romans and James, and I noticed that neither Paul nor James seemed to talk like we talked, or feel like we felt. In fact, I started to come across a fair amount of scripture which seemed to contradict what I had been taught.
In addition, all of the quizzers from other churches were not anything like what I had been told to expect. Instead of playing church and being lukewarm, I found peers that had profound insights into the things of God and were passionate for their faith.
Step 3 - Active denial of Step 2
I never actually went through this step. Being a teenager, I had a natural rebellious streak anyway, so the idea of being a rebel for Christ was appealing. However, I have seen a lot of people hit this point. They are so afraid of being wrong, or being out of the right group, that they aggressively squash any questions that had been forming in their head. They recommit and become more fundamental than ever.
I think step 3 is more involved with leaving a faith paradigm (though I suppose it could happen in other things). There tends to be more than an idea at stake when shifting within or out of your faith. Faith groups have words like heretic, apostate, excommunication, damnation, etc... which are strong inhibitors to keep you from questioning or investigating too much.
Step 4 - Significant Destabilizing Event
I LOVE this phrase. It speaks volumes. I pray each of you reading this may have MANY Significant Destabilizing Events. The author of this list says that this is "some critical incident that throws one out of the denial stage". I would also add that it solidifies your niggling suspicions if you never had a denial stage.
As I look over my history, most of my paradigm shifts had some kind of S.D.E. (or at least a D.E.). I can look back and think, "That is the event or item that caused me to question ____".
My ultimate point in writing this blog was to share a few of my significant destabilizing events (perhaps in the comments section you might share some of yours).
I remember when I first allowed the question to form that perhaps God was not a Republican. :) I was at the music festival Ichthus, reading a Christian Rock magazine. The editorial was written by a man who was obviously passionate about Christ, but he was criticizing the Republican administration for its lack of concern for the poor. I remember just staring at the magazine. I couldn't get the two ideas to fit... man of God... not Republican...man of God...not Republican. There may have been smoke coming out my ears as I wrestled with that one.
I had an SDE concerning Hell, and it has remained destabilized ever since. I was in my early twenties and worked with my Dad's carpet company. He had a couple installers and a number of guys from church he had hired as laborers. One of the installers was a guy named Jerry. Jerry was a kind and honest man from what I knew of him. He always put in a good day's work. I knew he had gone through a bad divorce and struggled to gain the acceptance of his son. Sadness hung over him. Through things he said I slowly pieced together that he had never felt truly accepted by anyone. He presumed he would always be rejected. So he drank... a lot. The man was just plain lonely.
His drinking got worse over the years. He literally drank himself to death. We were on a job when my dad told us. We all just shook our heads. It was so sad. Later in conversation, one of the guys from my church said, "The real tragedy here is that Jerry didn't accept Jesus. Now he is in Hell."
I couldn't sleep that night. Was Jerry in Hell? After all of the rejection Jerry had dealt with, did God reject him too? It is the rejection Jerry would have expected from God. This wasn't equating to me. Doesn't God save the day? Doesn't he rescue? Doesn't he love the rejected? Does salvation really come down to a set or right words or beliefs? Doesn't that make God rather small? Isn't he bigger than our expectations?
Steps 8 and 9 - Belief system collapse and belief system rebuild.
The author says that going through these steps requires one to sit with uncertainty. This is a hard place. Most of our faith structures tell us to be certain. However, a willingness to sit in this place allows us to move forward to new paradigms.
Step 11 - Openness to repeat this cycle.
The thing is, once you do this cycle, you never stop doing it. Walter Brueggemann says that this is the only way to truly grow in God because "God will not be settled".
I have read so many authors lately that I cannot remember who to credit this thought to, but the point is that when you "settle" God, when you say "This is who He is", you have created a graven image and have stepped into idolatry. Faith lived out must always be thesis/anti-thesis, because God is always on the move. He will not be calculated and predicted (read Job). The Spirit blows wherever it pleases.
If we are to be followers of Christ, we must be willing to move.
Step 1 - Blissful Ignorance
He states that this is the step where, "we see all opposition as evil, sin, 'the adversary', tempting people to stray from the truth." Growing up charismatic, I learned that we were right and everyone else was wrong. Since we believed in the "gifts of the spirit" we were "Full Gospel" (so by definition, everyone else was only "part gospel"). Nearly everyone else was considered "other", so we believed we had a lot of opposition trying to water down or destroy our truth.
Step 2 - Niggling Suspicions
Here he states that we start to see that the opposition may hold something of value and words like "perhaps" enter our mind. These started for me when I joined Bible Quizzing in my early teens. I was learning the books of Romans and James, and I noticed that neither Paul nor James seemed to talk like we talked, or feel like we felt. In fact, I started to come across a fair amount of scripture which seemed to contradict what I had been taught.
In addition, all of the quizzers from other churches were not anything like what I had been told to expect. Instead of playing church and being lukewarm, I found peers that had profound insights into the things of God and were passionate for their faith.
Step 3 - Active denial of Step 2
I never actually went through this step. Being a teenager, I had a natural rebellious streak anyway, so the idea of being a rebel for Christ was appealing. However, I have seen a lot of people hit this point. They are so afraid of being wrong, or being out of the right group, that they aggressively squash any questions that had been forming in their head. They recommit and become more fundamental than ever.
I think step 3 is more involved with leaving a faith paradigm (though I suppose it could happen in other things). There tends to be more than an idea at stake when shifting within or out of your faith. Faith groups have words like heretic, apostate, excommunication, damnation, etc... which are strong inhibitors to keep you from questioning or investigating too much.
Step 4 - Significant Destabilizing Event
I LOVE this phrase. It speaks volumes. I pray each of you reading this may have MANY Significant Destabilizing Events. The author of this list says that this is "some critical incident that throws one out of the denial stage". I would also add that it solidifies your niggling suspicions if you never had a denial stage.
As I look over my history, most of my paradigm shifts had some kind of S.D.E. (or at least a D.E.). I can look back and think, "That is the event or item that caused me to question ____".
My ultimate point in writing this blog was to share a few of my significant destabilizing events (perhaps in the comments section you might share some of yours).
I remember when I first allowed the question to form that perhaps God was not a Republican. :) I was at the music festival Ichthus, reading a Christian Rock magazine. The editorial was written by a man who was obviously passionate about Christ, but he was criticizing the Republican administration for its lack of concern for the poor. I remember just staring at the magazine. I couldn't get the two ideas to fit... man of God... not Republican...man of God...not Republican. There may have been smoke coming out my ears as I wrestled with that one.
I had an SDE concerning Hell, and it has remained destabilized ever since. I was in my early twenties and worked with my Dad's carpet company. He had a couple installers and a number of guys from church he had hired as laborers. One of the installers was a guy named Jerry. Jerry was a kind and honest man from what I knew of him. He always put in a good day's work. I knew he had gone through a bad divorce and struggled to gain the acceptance of his son. Sadness hung over him. Through things he said I slowly pieced together that he had never felt truly accepted by anyone. He presumed he would always be rejected. So he drank... a lot. The man was just plain lonely.
His drinking got worse over the years. He literally drank himself to death. We were on a job when my dad told us. We all just shook our heads. It was so sad. Later in conversation, one of the guys from my church said, "The real tragedy here is that Jerry didn't accept Jesus. Now he is in Hell."
I couldn't sleep that night. Was Jerry in Hell? After all of the rejection Jerry had dealt with, did God reject him too? It is the rejection Jerry would have expected from God. This wasn't equating to me. Doesn't God save the day? Doesn't he rescue? Doesn't he love the rejected? Does salvation really come down to a set or right words or beliefs? Doesn't that make God rather small? Isn't he bigger than our expectations?
Steps 8 and 9 - Belief system collapse and belief system rebuild.
The author says that going through these steps requires one to sit with uncertainty. This is a hard place. Most of our faith structures tell us to be certain. However, a willingness to sit in this place allows us to move forward to new paradigms.
Step 11 - Openness to repeat this cycle.
The thing is, once you do this cycle, you never stop doing it. Walter Brueggemann says that this is the only way to truly grow in God because "God will not be settled".
I have read so many authors lately that I cannot remember who to credit this thought to, but the point is that when you "settle" God, when you say "This is who He is", you have created a graven image and have stepped into idolatry. Faith lived out must always be thesis/anti-thesis, because God is always on the move. He will not be calculated and predicted (read Job). The Spirit blows wherever it pleases.
If we are to be followers of Christ, we must be willing to move.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
The open forum
I have been involved in a friendly theological discussion over at another blog. It is one of those discussions where we probably don't disagree half as much as it might appear. It also has the pleasant aspect of having remained respectful, which is always nice.
My end of the discussion, and I came in at the middle, concerned what role the Pharisees play and represent in the Gospels and Acts.
I always have felt that I was fortunate to have exposure to a number of lines of Christian thought through Detroit Bible Quizzing's multi-denominational program. It expanded my horizons. I think blogging and blog discussions provide some similar soil.
Anyway, I feel I haven't written as much here lately as I would like, but have written a fair amount over there. I am also curious what your take on it may be.
http://historicchristianorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-emergent-orthopraxy.html
My end of the discussion, and I came in at the middle, concerned what role the Pharisees play and represent in the Gospels and Acts.
I always have felt that I was fortunate to have exposure to a number of lines of Christian thought through Detroit Bible Quizzing's multi-denominational program. It expanded my horizons. I think blogging and blog discussions provide some similar soil.
Anyway, I feel I haven't written as much here lately as I would like, but have written a fair amount over there. I am also curious what your take on it may be.
http://historicchristianorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-emergent-orthopraxy.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
