Can't Buy Me Love
Wouldn't it be nice to be rich? Wow! What could you do with a billion dollars?
The State of the World - Poverty & Development Wait a minute! I am rich! I'm in the top 10% of the world's population in income! Thank you Lord for blessing me with more than I deserve and more than I need! Help me to be grateful! And help me to do more to help allievate poverty and injustice in the world. Here's a good place to start: Christian Child Sponsorship - Compassion International: Sponsor a Child
2.28.2004
Essay: For One Catholic, "Passion" Skews the Meaning of the Crucifixion
Interesting article. The most striking part of the essay is the line, "I would venture to say that neither of these women's vision of the world was changed by the film. They brought their own Jesus into the movie with them, their own religious history and their understanding of the history of the world. As, of course, did I. And so if Mr. Gibson's goal was to change hearts and minds, I can't believe he'll be successful."
It's definitely true that many will see the Jesus they want to see in the movie or they will just reject the movie. What does your own Jesus look like?
Yet we must hope and pray that even though the movie isn't perfect, that the Holy Spirit will use it to reach into people's lives. At the very least, it gets the person of Jesus face time in the New York Times.
One distrubing trend I have seen in the media in relation to this film is the practice of round table discussions. In almost every round table discussion, one of the "experts" makes a statement of the historical unreliability of the gospels. This becomes one of the presuppositions in the entire discussion. Unfortunately, none of the programs I have seen have had anyone on the panel that attempted to challenge this basic presupposition.
One man who made this comment is a writer for Newsweek. Sure he's smart. Sure he's researched the topic and come to his own conclusions. But it would be nice to have a truly qualified individual, such as a New Testament scholar share his or her thoughts on this issue. And since New Testament scholars come in so many stripes now, get a liberal and a conservative and let them talk about these issues. Don't let the guy from Newsweek shape the discussion about the historical reliability of the gospels.
Makes me wonder what other opinions on any story I'm not getting in these round table discussions.
Interesting article. The most striking part of the essay is the line, "I would venture to say that neither of these women's vision of the world was changed by the film. They brought their own Jesus into the movie with them, their own religious history and their understanding of the history of the world. As, of course, did I. And so if Mr. Gibson's goal was to change hearts and minds, I can't believe he'll be successful."
It's definitely true that many will see the Jesus they want to see in the movie or they will just reject the movie. What does your own Jesus look like?
Yet we must hope and pray that even though the movie isn't perfect, that the Holy Spirit will use it to reach into people's lives. At the very least, it gets the person of Jesus face time in the New York Times.
One distrubing trend I have seen in the media in relation to this film is the practice of round table discussions. In almost every round table discussion, one of the "experts" makes a statement of the historical unreliability of the gospels. This becomes one of the presuppositions in the entire discussion. Unfortunately, none of the programs I have seen have had anyone on the panel that attempted to challenge this basic presupposition.
One man who made this comment is a writer for Newsweek. Sure he's smart. Sure he's researched the topic and come to his own conclusions. But it would be nice to have a truly qualified individual, such as a New Testament scholar share his or her thoughts on this issue. And since New Testament scholars come in so many stripes now, get a liberal and a conservative and let them talk about these issues. Don't let the guy from Newsweek shape the discussion about the historical reliability of the gospels.
Makes me wonder what other opinions on any story I'm not getting in these round table discussions.
2.23.2004
PC(USA) - Ash Wednesday-Is It Presbyterian?
Who cares? I serve a Presbyterian congregation and I am often dumbfounded at how seriously people take being a Presbyterian! We even have some in our church that think the reason we are not growing is because we are not emphasizing our Presbyterianism enough!
In my opinion, and in the opinion of many scholars who study church growth, this idea couldn't get much farther from the truth. In fact we are not growing because we are in a rural area that is literally dying, with few new families moving into the community.
Will the emerging church get away from this denominationalism? Much of evangelicalism already has, but it is going to die hard among mainline protestants. Will the mainline be able to reinvent itself to reach the younger generation? I have my doubts! Especially when the chief concerning for some surrounding Ash Wednesday is, "Is it Presbyterian."
Who cares? I serve a Presbyterian congregation and I am often dumbfounded at how seriously people take being a Presbyterian! We even have some in our church that think the reason we are not growing is because we are not emphasizing our Presbyterianism enough!
In my opinion, and in the opinion of many scholars who study church growth, this idea couldn't get much farther from the truth. In fact we are not growing because we are in a rural area that is literally dying, with few new families moving into the community.
Will the emerging church get away from this denominationalism? Much of evangelicalism already has, but it is going to die hard among mainline protestants. Will the mainline be able to reinvent itself to reach the younger generation? I have my doubts! Especially when the chief concerning for some surrounding Ash Wednesday is, "Is it Presbyterian."
2.21.2004
Worship Committee Meeting
We had a meeting of the worship committee at the Presbyterian church this morning. I am amazed at how set in our particular styles of worship we become. I am amazed at how little we realize that God is the audience for our worship, that it's not about us and what we get out of it.
I am amazed how the older generation has no idea how to attract younger people to church. They think, if we just emphasize being Presbyterian, if we just educate about reformed worship, if we just do it like we used to do it when so many people were coming...
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. Much of what we do in the church today is insane! Mainline denominations scratch their heads and wonder why they are loosing so many people and not attracting young people. Will they ever learn?
We had a meeting of the worship committee at the Presbyterian church this morning. I am amazed at how set in our particular styles of worship we become. I am amazed at how little we realize that God is the audience for our worship, that it's not about us and what we get out of it.
I am amazed how the older generation has no idea how to attract younger people to church. They think, if we just emphasize being Presbyterian, if we just educate about reformed worship, if we just do it like we used to do it when so many people were coming...
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. Much of what we do in the church today is insane! Mainline denominations scratch their heads and wonder why they are loosing so many people and not attracting young people. Will they ever learn?
From "2 Corinthians" by Linda L. Belleville
"There is a tendency in evangelicalism today to place great store in charismatic preaching, professional programming and a worship service that is glamorous and glitzy—in short, to expect a good performance rather than a good message. Paul faced serious personal challenges throughout his ministry because he rejected the performance orientation of his own culture and focused only on preaching 'Jesus Christ and him crucified' (1 Cor. 2:2)."
I agree that this is a tendency in evangelicalism. I had to leave a previous ministry because of similar issues. I was not charismatic enough. I wasn’t successful enough. I wasn’t getting the results the church leadership wanted. I was a youth pastor. No wonder the average tenure of a youth pastor today is 18 months. Worship pastors are beginning to experience this type of criticism and pressure as well.
We must turn away from this mindset just as the apostle Paul did. We must continue to preach only Jesus and him crucified! My fear is that the emerging, postmodern church will be just as susceptible to this tendency. Will the emerging church only welcome and honor those individuals who are "charismatic preachers?" Will the postmodern church only celebrate "professional programming and a worship service that is glamorous and glitzy?" Or will the emerging church appreciate the preaching of Jesus Christ and him crucified above all else in the church?
Belleville closes her reflections on this idea with this: "In a day and age where there is a similar emphasis on spiritual achievements, financial empires, miraculous gifts and performance skills in the pulpit, we do well to heed the warning of how easy it is to end up communicating another Jesus, another Spirit and another gospel."
"There is a tendency in evangelicalism today to place great store in charismatic preaching, professional programming and a worship service that is glamorous and glitzy—in short, to expect a good performance rather than a good message. Paul faced serious personal challenges throughout his ministry because he rejected the performance orientation of his own culture and focused only on preaching 'Jesus Christ and him crucified' (1 Cor. 2:2)."
I agree that this is a tendency in evangelicalism. I had to leave a previous ministry because of similar issues. I was not charismatic enough. I wasn’t successful enough. I wasn’t getting the results the church leadership wanted. I was a youth pastor. No wonder the average tenure of a youth pastor today is 18 months. Worship pastors are beginning to experience this type of criticism and pressure as well.
We must turn away from this mindset just as the apostle Paul did. We must continue to preach only Jesus and him crucified! My fear is that the emerging, postmodern church will be just as susceptible to this tendency. Will the emerging church only welcome and honor those individuals who are "charismatic preachers?" Will the postmodern church only celebrate "professional programming and a worship service that is glamorous and glitzy?" Or will the emerging church appreciate the preaching of Jesus Christ and him crucified above all else in the church?
Belleville closes her reflections on this idea with this: "In a day and age where there is a similar emphasis on spiritual achievements, financial empires, miraculous gifts and performance skills in the pulpit, we do well to heed the warning of how easy it is to end up communicating another Jesus, another Spirit and another gospel."
2.20.2004
Fourth funeral this year today
Another funeral today. This time its for a long time member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The poor man had Alzheimer's for quite some time. He leaves behind a mourning widow and an eleven year old grandson who they have raised as their own. Their son is in prison.
The cost of the funeral is such a burden for this poor family. It is so hard to watch these people suffer so much.
Our community experiences so much grief. Many of the same elderly people attend the funerals I officiate. They watch as childhood friends die and know that their turn is only a matter of time.
An old definition of pastoral ministry is "preparing people for a good death." In this community it is certainly true. Yet I think all pastoral ministry should be informed by death both ours and others. We will all die and we as pastors will be replaced. But as a husband, as a father, as a son, as a friend, we will never be replaced. So what roles in our lives are the most important?
Another funeral today. This time its for a long time member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The poor man had Alzheimer's for quite some time. He leaves behind a mourning widow and an eleven year old grandson who they have raised as their own. Their son is in prison.
The cost of the funeral is such a burden for this poor family. It is so hard to watch these people suffer so much.
Our community experiences so much grief. Many of the same elderly people attend the funerals I officiate. They watch as childhood friends die and know that their turn is only a matter of time.
An old definition of pastoral ministry is "preparing people for a good death." In this community it is certainly true. Yet I think all pastoral ministry should be informed by death both ours and others. We will all die and we as pastors will be replaced. But as a husband, as a father, as a son, as a friend, we will never be replaced. So what roles in our lives are the most important?
2.17.2004
Presbytery
I had a Presbytery meeting a few weeks ago. This is the quarterly meeting were we all get together and argue and fuss over everything! It is crazy in some ways. I kept thinking to myself that many of the things we are arguing about, God doesn't care one bit about! Why do we torture ourselves like this?
I had a Presbytery meeting a few weeks ago. This is the quarterly meeting were we all get together and argue and fuss over everything! It is crazy in some ways. I kept thinking to myself that many of the things we are arguing about, God doesn't care one bit about! Why do we torture ourselves like this?
Confirmation/Pastor's Class
I am currently teaching a confirmation/pastor's class. This is the first time I have ever done this. Teaching a class like this for two different denominations is very challenging. The Christian Church does not have creeds or confessions. They are famous for saying "No creed but Christ." But the Presbyterians have the Book of Confessions. Then they differ significantly on baptism. Christian church practices "believer baptism" Presbyterians infant baptism.
Then there's the polity. The churches are governed so differently, Christian Church is congregational, Presbyterians are well Presbyterians!
I enjoy teaching both sides of the issue and this class provides me that opportunity. Yet I am saddened that Christians have so many differences that we end up with so many denominations.
I am currently teaching a confirmation/pastor's class. This is the first time I have ever done this. Teaching a class like this for two different denominations is very challenging. The Christian Church does not have creeds or confessions. They are famous for saying "No creed but Christ." But the Presbyterians have the Book of Confessions. Then they differ significantly on baptism. Christian church practices "believer baptism" Presbyterians infant baptism.
Then there's the polity. The churches are governed so differently, Christian Church is congregational, Presbyterians are well Presbyterians!
I enjoy teaching both sides of the issue and this class provides me that opportunity. Yet I am saddened that Christians have so many differences that we end up with so many denominations.
2.04.2004
“The Christian Mind” by Harry Blamires:
These are some thought provoking quotes from a book I just started reading. Though the copy I have is very dated (1963) he has some good thoughts on the topic of the Christian mind. So far in my reading I have come to wonder if the Church and Christians are innovative or reactionary. I tend to think and believe that Christians and the church are reactionary and not very innovative. Some of these quotes illicited a reader-response from me in this vain. Why does most important and noted cultural criticism come from people with a secular mindset? Why don't Christians influence the public debate on topics (outside of morality)?! Why are Christians often so late to the discussion table?
Now for some of the quotes. Let me know what you think. What do you agree with? Argue with?
“There is no longer a Christian mind. There is still, of course, a Christian ethic, a Christian practice, and a Christian spirituality. As a moral being, the modern Christian subscribes to a code other than that of the non-Christian. As a member of the Church, he undertakes obligations and observations ignored by the non-Christian. As a spiritual being, in prayer and meditation, he strives to cultivate a dimension of life unexplored by the non-Christian. But as a thinking being, the modern Christian has succumbed to secularization. He accepts religion—its morality, its worship, its spiritual culture; but he rejects the religious view of life, the view which sees all earthly issues within the context of the eternal, the view which relates all human problems—social, political, cultural—to the doctrinal foundations of the Christian Faith, the view which sees all things here below in terms of God’s supremacy and earth’s transitoriness, in terms of Heaven and Hell” (pp. 3-4)
I definitely see this in some of my parishoners!
“My thesis amounts to this. Except over a very narrow field for thinking, chiefly touching questions of strictly personal conduct, we Christians in the modern world accept, for the purpose of mental activity, a frame of reference constructed by the secular mind and a set of criteria reflecting secular evaluations. There is no Christian mind; there is no shared field of discourse in which we can move at ease as thinking Christians by trodden ways and past established landmarks.
Perhaps most of the acclaimed thinkers and prophets of our day are non-Christians. A glance at some of the influential critiques of our culture that have made a popular impact in the last few years would suggest this view. Many writers who have recently probed the values of our culture, scrutinized the quality of current civilization with critical and penetrating eyes, have done so from a humanistic standpoint” (p. 5).
Are Christians today scrutinizing "the quality of current civilization with critical and penetrating eyes" from a theological standpoint?
“...though many of their books reflect a deep concern and unease over the present state of our culture and brood critically upon the sham values which commerce is imposing on modern man, generally speaking the judgments passed are not Christian judgments. They are not the products of Christian insight, Christian instruction, Christian vision. No theology lies at the back of what is otherwise an apparently healthy rejection of current materialism in its cruder manifestations” (pp. 5-6).
Is this also true of much of the current critique of modernism by post-moderns?
“The whole analytical process is carried out within a frame of reference which totally excludes the spiritual dimension, which totally ignores man’s primary nature as a religious being” (p. 8).
“Thus prophetic condemnation of salient features of contemporary secularism comes nowadays from secularists themselves whose ground of judgment is a humanistic one. It is clear that where there is no Christian mind to pass judgment upon society, those who care for human dignity and integrity on other grounds than the Christian’s will be provoked to rebel against the multifarious tendencies of contemporary civilization to depersonalize men and women. This rebellion must be regarded as a significant feature of the post-Christian world. It is good in itself. That is to say, the protest needs to be made. What is bad is that it should come from outside the Christian tradition” (pp. 8-9).
“In the same way, if we turn to the world of imaginative literature, we shall find that the deepest rejections of the shallowness and shoddiness of twentieth-century civilization are issuing from artists who are utterly out of touch with the Christian tradition” (p. 9).
“If Christians cannot communicate as thinking beings, they are reduced to encountering one another only at the shallow level of gossip and small talk. Hence the perhaps peculiarly modern problem—the loneliness of the thinking Christian” (p. 13).
“The mental secularization of Christians means that nowadays we meet only as worshipping beings and as moral beings, not as thinking beings” (p. 16).
These are some thought provoking quotes from a book I just started reading. Though the copy I have is very dated (1963) he has some good thoughts on the topic of the Christian mind. So far in my reading I have come to wonder if the Church and Christians are innovative or reactionary. I tend to think and believe that Christians and the church are reactionary and not very innovative. Some of these quotes illicited a reader-response from me in this vain. Why does most important and noted cultural criticism come from people with a secular mindset? Why don't Christians influence the public debate on topics (outside of morality)?! Why are Christians often so late to the discussion table?
Now for some of the quotes. Let me know what you think. What do you agree with? Argue with?
“There is no longer a Christian mind. There is still, of course, a Christian ethic, a Christian practice, and a Christian spirituality. As a moral being, the modern Christian subscribes to a code other than that of the non-Christian. As a member of the Church, he undertakes obligations and observations ignored by the non-Christian. As a spiritual being, in prayer and meditation, he strives to cultivate a dimension of life unexplored by the non-Christian. But as a thinking being, the modern Christian has succumbed to secularization. He accepts religion—its morality, its worship, its spiritual culture; but he rejects the religious view of life, the view which sees all earthly issues within the context of the eternal, the view which relates all human problems—social, political, cultural—to the doctrinal foundations of the Christian Faith, the view which sees all things here below in terms of God’s supremacy and earth’s transitoriness, in terms of Heaven and Hell” (pp. 3-4)
I definitely see this in some of my parishoners!
“My thesis amounts to this. Except over a very narrow field for thinking, chiefly touching questions of strictly personal conduct, we Christians in the modern world accept, for the purpose of mental activity, a frame of reference constructed by the secular mind and a set of criteria reflecting secular evaluations. There is no Christian mind; there is no shared field of discourse in which we can move at ease as thinking Christians by trodden ways and past established landmarks.
Perhaps most of the acclaimed thinkers and prophets of our day are non-Christians. A glance at some of the influential critiques of our culture that have made a popular impact in the last few years would suggest this view. Many writers who have recently probed the values of our culture, scrutinized the quality of current civilization with critical and penetrating eyes, have done so from a humanistic standpoint” (p. 5).
Are Christians today scrutinizing "the quality of current civilization with critical and penetrating eyes" from a theological standpoint?
“...though many of their books reflect a deep concern and unease over the present state of our culture and brood critically upon the sham values which commerce is imposing on modern man, generally speaking the judgments passed are not Christian judgments. They are not the products of Christian insight, Christian instruction, Christian vision. No theology lies at the back of what is otherwise an apparently healthy rejection of current materialism in its cruder manifestations” (pp. 5-6).
Is this also true of much of the current critique of modernism by post-moderns?
“The whole analytical process is carried out within a frame of reference which totally excludes the spiritual dimension, which totally ignores man’s primary nature as a religious being” (p. 8).
“Thus prophetic condemnation of salient features of contemporary secularism comes nowadays from secularists themselves whose ground of judgment is a humanistic one. It is clear that where there is no Christian mind to pass judgment upon society, those who care for human dignity and integrity on other grounds than the Christian’s will be provoked to rebel against the multifarious tendencies of contemporary civilization to depersonalize men and women. This rebellion must be regarded as a significant feature of the post-Christian world. It is good in itself. That is to say, the protest needs to be made. What is bad is that it should come from outside the Christian tradition” (pp. 8-9).
“In the same way, if we turn to the world of imaginative literature, we shall find that the deepest rejections of the shallowness and shoddiness of twentieth-century civilization are issuing from artists who are utterly out of touch with the Christian tradition” (p. 9).
“If Christians cannot communicate as thinking beings, they are reduced to encountering one another only at the shallow level of gossip and small talk. Hence the perhaps peculiarly modern problem—the loneliness of the thinking Christian” (p. 13).
“The mental secularization of Christians means that nowadays we meet only as worshipping beings and as moral beings, not as thinking beings” (p. 16).
2.02.2004
Janet Jackson's Bare Breast Sparks FCC Probe
We had the youth from our churches over to watch the Super Bowl and there were several times I was stunned by what I saw on TV. Obviously Jackson and Timberlake's stunt was one of them.
But even more disturbing to me was how inoculated the students appear to be to this kind of stuff. I was blushing at times and they never seemed disturbed or embarrassed by any of it.
At times I don’t feel kids have a chance to live a life of purity. A life of obedience to Christ. I know obedience to Christ is more than a few moral issues. But the odds sure seem against these kids more than ever.
It doesn’t help that much of the church is irrelevant to them as well. How do we turn junior and senior high school students into passionate followers of Christ? How do we help anyone become a passionate follower of Christ?
I am becoming more and more convinced thanks to Eugene Peterson that much of the answer for pastors is prayer, attending to Scripture, and spiritual direction.
We had the youth from our churches over to watch the Super Bowl and there were several times I was stunned by what I saw on TV. Obviously Jackson and Timberlake's stunt was one of them.
But even more disturbing to me was how inoculated the students appear to be to this kind of stuff. I was blushing at times and they never seemed disturbed or embarrassed by any of it.
At times I don’t feel kids have a chance to live a life of purity. A life of obedience to Christ. I know obedience to Christ is more than a few moral issues. But the odds sure seem against these kids more than ever.
It doesn’t help that much of the church is irrelevant to them as well. How do we turn junior and senior high school students into passionate followers of Christ? How do we help anyone become a passionate follower of Christ?
I am becoming more and more convinced thanks to Eugene Peterson that much of the answer for pastors is prayer, attending to Scripture, and spiritual direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
