Well, perhaps part of the conundrum here lies in the way we phrase that question. I say this because I’m not sure God “sends” anyone to Hell, so much as we choose NOT to accept His invitation to Heaven.
Let me put it this way:
if you invited me to live in your House, but I decline the invitation because I don’t want to be with you, or to live under your “roof and rules”, you can hardly be said to have send me away into the darkness outside; however, once I realize how special your house is, I may regret my decision [i.e. U2 is the house band, Rachael Ray makes all the meals, the Cirque deSoleil performs in between new Wachowski brothers films and demonstrations of the latest gadets from Sharper Image, etc…]. This regret [as well as the fact that there is gigantic fire outside, I’m being gang-raped by bikers, and am in constant threat of vampires hunting me for all eternity] is what makes up the Horrors of Hell.
I know I could have lived with you, but I chose not to and that knowledge torments me. In addition, the Devil and all his fallen angels have been sent to the same spot, and I am now forced to share space with them [hence the vampires and the bikers].
So, it’s not that God sends people to Hell, it’s that they choose to reject Him and once they realize their mistake they’ve entered Hell [both figuratively and, ultimately, literally].
C.S. Lewis hypothesized in The Great Divorce that many people would choose to continue living in Hell even if given many, many additional opportunities to come and live in Heaven because they could not bear the thought of giving up their selfish autonomy; after all, as Dante’s Devil said, “it is better to rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven.”
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Sunday, August 12, 2007
kids et al.
no one can ever tell you how much you'll love your children
mine are away right now, with carmel, visiting family and their absence makes me sick. my house feels too big, with too many rooms and not enough of a mess in the kitchen. every morning i wake up in fits and starts, scared because i don't hear the enthusiasm of my son's heavy footfalls accelerating into the master bedroom. every night i dream of the spastic glee of my daughter when i pull her out of her crib, her beaver's front teeth smiling at me like goalposts.
the house feels too cold with them gone, and when i laugh while looking at their pictures i imagine carmel laughing with me and it makes me quickly want to jump on a plane and surprise them.
[i forsee a terrible amount of money being spent spoiling my family when they return]
loving my kids this much makes me realize how loved i was [and am] by my parents. it forces me to relive every moment where i thought they were embarrased of me, or would have been better off without a third son. i realize now that nothing - nothing! - could ever separate my love from my children.
in this way i feel like god
though, it stuns me to think that what i'm feeling is only a splinter's worth of his great affection for us.
at any rate - i miss you 3
love you!
mine are away right now, with carmel, visiting family and their absence makes me sick. my house feels too big, with too many rooms and not enough of a mess in the kitchen. every morning i wake up in fits and starts, scared because i don't hear the enthusiasm of my son's heavy footfalls accelerating into the master bedroom. every night i dream of the spastic glee of my daughter when i pull her out of her crib, her beaver's front teeth smiling at me like goalposts.
the house feels too cold with them gone, and when i laugh while looking at their pictures i imagine carmel laughing with me and it makes me quickly want to jump on a plane and surprise them.
[i forsee a terrible amount of money being spent spoiling my family when they return]
loving my kids this much makes me realize how loved i was [and am] by my parents. it forces me to relive every moment where i thought they were embarrased of me, or would have been better off without a third son. i realize now that nothing - nothing! - could ever separate my love from my children.
in this way i feel like god
though, it stuns me to think that what i'm feeling is only a splinter's worth of his great affection for us.
at any rate - i miss you 3
love you!
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
color quiz
i took this strange test at colorquiz.com and was amazed at the poignancy of the results. i wouldn't totally agree with everything the quiz states about me, but i'd honestly give it a 9/10 for accuracy.
scary...
here are my results:
YOUR CURRENT SCENARIO: Willing and adaptable. Only at peace when closely attached to a person, group, or organization on a which reliance can be placed.
YOUR SOURCE OF STRESS: Wishes to be independent, unhampered, and free from any limitation or restriction, other than those which he imposes of himself or by his own choice and decision.
YOUR RESTRAINED CHARACTERISTICS: Willing to participate and to allow himself to become involved, but tries to fend off conflict and disturbance in order to reduce tension. Feels that he cannot do much about his existing problems and difficulties and that he must make the best of things as they are. Able to achieve satisfaction from sexual activity.
YOUR DESIRED OBJECTIVE: Takes easily and quickly to anything which provides stimulation. Preoccupied with things of an intensely exciting nature, whether erotically stimulating or otherwise. Wants to be regarded as an exciting and interesting personality with an altogether charming and impressive influence on others. Uses tactics cleverly so as to avoid endangering his chances of success or undermined others' confidence in himself.
YOUR ACTUAL PROBLEM: Seeks to avoid criticism and to prevent restriction of his freedom to act, and to decide for himself by the exercise of great personal charm in his dealings with others.
...looks like i picked the right week to stop seeing a therapist :)
scary...
here are my results:
YOUR CURRENT SCENARIO: Willing and adaptable. Only at peace when closely attached to a person, group, or organization on a which reliance can be placed.
YOUR SOURCE OF STRESS: Wishes to be independent, unhampered, and free from any limitation or restriction, other than those which he imposes of himself or by his own choice and decision.
YOUR RESTRAINED CHARACTERISTICS: Willing to participate and to allow himself to become involved, but tries to fend off conflict and disturbance in order to reduce tension. Feels that he cannot do much about his existing problems and difficulties and that he must make the best of things as they are. Able to achieve satisfaction from sexual activity.
YOUR DESIRED OBJECTIVE: Takes easily and quickly to anything which provides stimulation. Preoccupied with things of an intensely exciting nature, whether erotically stimulating or otherwise. Wants to be regarded as an exciting and interesting personality with an altogether charming and impressive influence on others. Uses tactics cleverly so as to avoid endangering his chances of success or undermined others' confidence in himself.
YOUR ACTUAL PROBLEM: Seeks to avoid criticism and to prevent restriction of his freedom to act, and to decide for himself by the exercise of great personal charm in his dealings with others.
...looks like i picked the right week to stop seeing a therapist :)
Sunday, July 29, 2007
greatest website ever
if you're like me and you've got little kids who love weird little toys, then readymech is the place for you
download printable, free, pdf's of how to make your own monsters
genious
more on causemology: who does god want us to be?
Who does God want us to be?
The underlying premise of Causemology is that we all need to be spiritually formed. This “formation” refers to the ways in which our engagement with God becomes more meaningful, our lifestyle and behaviors better reflecting His goodness.
Some people refer to this as ‘discipleship’, by which we mean that we are becoming better followers of Jesus Christ. Some people refer to this as developing ‘maturity’, by which we mean that we are becoming more ‘grown up’ in our spiritual selves.
Regardless of our terminology, we recognize that this development is a never-ending process – a journey towards God – that we will always be involved in. There are innumerable ways in which we are formed.
People experience god in many different ways. There are those who connect most with a careful study of the scriptures; there are those who connect most through musical worship [or even non-musical forms of worship]; there are those who connect through nature, through spiritual disciplines, through art, through movement, and through a host of other kinds of expression and interaction with their creator. [For a look at nine significant pathways of spiritual connection, see the section on “Sacred Pathways” in Know Yourself: a handbook on spiritual identity.]
Unfortunately, many of us really have no idea how we connect best with god. So we all need people to teach us how.
Humbling ourselves before God and asking for His help doesn’t exactly come easily for most of us. We’ve gotten quite comfortable being independent and doing things on our own. So, even that part is going to take a bit of adjustment.
That’s okay – you’ve got lots of opportunity to move into this new way of living with Causemology. The important thing is to start someplace. God is at work in you every day, so He’ll start dropping you hints throughout the week – invitations into his presence – and your job is to simply pay attention.
The underlying premise of Causemology is that we all need to be spiritually formed. This “formation” refers to the ways in which our engagement with God becomes more meaningful, our lifestyle and behaviors better reflecting His goodness.
Some people refer to this as ‘discipleship’, by which we mean that we are becoming better followers of Jesus Christ. Some people refer to this as developing ‘maturity’, by which we mean that we are becoming more ‘grown up’ in our spiritual selves.
Regardless of our terminology, we recognize that this development is a never-ending process – a journey towards God – that we will always be involved in. There are innumerable ways in which we are formed.
People experience god in many different ways. There are those who connect most with a careful study of the scriptures; there are those who connect most through musical worship [or even non-musical forms of worship]; there are those who connect through nature, through spiritual disciplines, through art, through movement, and through a host of other kinds of expression and interaction with their creator. [For a look at nine significant pathways of spiritual connection, see the section on “Sacred Pathways” in Know Yourself: a handbook on spiritual identity.]
Unfortunately, many of us really have no idea how we connect best with god. So we all need people to teach us how.
Humbling ourselves before God and asking for His help doesn’t exactly come easily for most of us. We’ve gotten quite comfortable being independent and doing things on our own. So, even that part is going to take a bit of adjustment.
That’s okay – you’ve got lots of opportunity to move into this new way of living with Causemology. The important thing is to start someplace. God is at work in you every day, so He’ll start dropping you hints throughout the week – invitations into his presence – and your job is to simply pay attention.
from, "this sunrise of wonder" by michael mayne
here's a book i highly recommend for any contemplative soul
from p. 70
"god [blesses] everything he creates, making all creation the sign of his presence. if spirituality means the way we grow into the kind of being we are intended to be, then the starting point is not a striving after another world, but a deepening awareness of the true nature of this world and our place in it."
excellent.
from p. 70
"god [blesses] everything he creates, making all creation the sign of his presence. if spirituality means the way we grow into the kind of being we are intended to be, then the starting point is not a striving after another world, but a deepening awareness of the true nature of this world and our place in it."
excellent.
Friday, July 20, 2007
a few thoughts on work & fear
in any work environment, much of the interplay between employees and employers is defined - sadly - by certain, specific, fears
now, in my mind, the real tragedies of fear are the interpersonal consequences
for example,
the most destructive thing about fear in a work environment is that it makes you treat people differently
fear disrupts relationships
you can't speak openly or honestly with someone else if you're afraid, and neither can they speak openly and honestly with you if they sense that your fear has erected barriers of tension, irrationality, and bad memories of previous employers
in addition,
fear has a nasty habit of awkwardly reprioritizing the wrong things
when we're afraid, we look for isolation - so that no one can "get us" or "get" our ideas
when we're afraid, we take solace in negative speech - so that others will know our opinion on the fear-makers
when we're afraid, we dismiss the open hearts and ready minds of willing helpers as the actions of credit-takers and dream-thieves
when, in fact, none of this may be true
in the church world - by which i mean the world of vocational [pastoral] ministry - we are often afraid of some very mundane things
words, for example, can be terribly frightening to pastors
words like "program", "prayer", "evangelism", "free-form", "criticism", "organic", "teamwork" and a variety of others from all over a variety of word-spectrums
we're afraid of these words because we think they're used as a means of control, by either complaining congregants or overbearing bosses
which, incidently, is another thing we're afraid of - authority
pastors are wired to be lone-rangers
and, to be fair, most pastors are one-man shows
so, particularly in this age of anti-denominational-involvement and local church autonomy, we shy away from authority
but i often miss authority
not because i want more rules
but because i require other, wiser, voices in my life to help me facilitate the work of god on earth
still, we're afraid of authority because we think authority means a lack of autonomy
and it does - and i think the most recent season of my life provides rich material for proving that lesser autonomy would be healthier for more pastors. we need accountability. we need counsel. we need boundaries and guidelines to which we submit as godly men and women under the authority of the body.
we don't need to be controlled, but we do need to be accountable.
which is another thing we're afraid of - accountability
we're afraid of being held accountable [even by godly, intelligent, well-meaning people] because we're afraid of failure
we're in a prime vocation for success/failure to drive our worth and our self-image
so, the idea that our ministries may not "work" is a horribly vulnerable thought
because we feel like it means "we" don't work
but this is not true
furthermore, we've got to be willing to be appraised on our efforts
to discard those things that are ineffective, or too costly, or produce nothing of new testament spirituality
and we often need other people to help us evaluate those things in those ways
because we're too afraid of failure to do it honestly ourselves
but, we're also afraid of working with other people closely
we're afraid of teamwork because we might not always have the best answers or the best solutions
and not being able to be the best - even though we don't want to admit it - seriously undercuts the shadow beliefs most pastors secretly hold
by which i mean that we all think we ought to know better
because we all feel like everyone else expects us to be wiser than politicians, more creative than hollywood producers, and more entrepreneurial than businessmen
and we're afraid they'll find out we're really not that qualified in those kinds of ways
lastly,
i think we're afraid of ideas
we're afraid of ideas that are bigger than us - because we can't make them real or understand their significance and we think we should
we're afraid of ideas that are newer than our new ideas - because we work so hard to stay fresh, it feels like an indictment that we're not the "fresh-est"
we're afraid of ideas that prove our hypotheses wrong - because we thought our 'bright ideas' would be the 'next big thing' and they so rarely - if ever - are
i think my job these days is to try and aleviate the fears of those around me
while speaking honestly with carmel or dad or jvo about my own fears
i try to put others' fears to rest
and i try and master my own
so,
to try and advance this conversation a little further
let me put some fears to bed
we are cultivating a staff at westwinds that works around the following kinds of things:
innovation - we want everyone to dream big, to think outside the boxes they've just built [by virtue of thinking outside their previous boxes], and to feel like they're empowered to try things no one else has the freedom or the resources to try
credibility - we also want everyone to hold their ideas loosely; so, if the idea is tried, tested, given a reasonable amount of tweaking and, at the end, feels like it's not effective...then we want to go back to the drawing board and start fresh - without judgement, without complaint, without accusation
freedom - we want everyone to take the space they need to be creative, to get things done, to honor family, to honor god, and to become the best possible version of themselves; but, to paraphrase what ben parker has said so well "with great freedom, comes great responsibility"
worth - we want everyone to receive credit for their own work, value for their own contributions, and to recognize the part they play on a much larger team. we want them to know that we couldn't do anything [like what we're currently doing] without them, and that their brains, their fantasies, and their noble ambitions are welcomed and authenticated here.
i don't often write on leadership stuff on this blog
typically, leadership stuff doesn't trouble me in ways that blogging might address therapeutically
but our staff is going through a lot these days
and i wanted to be public about my love and my ambitions for them
now, in my mind, the real tragedies of fear are the interpersonal consequences
for example,
the most destructive thing about fear in a work environment is that it makes you treat people differently
fear disrupts relationships
you can't speak openly or honestly with someone else if you're afraid, and neither can they speak openly and honestly with you if they sense that your fear has erected barriers of tension, irrationality, and bad memories of previous employers
in addition,
fear has a nasty habit of awkwardly reprioritizing the wrong things
when we're afraid, we look for isolation - so that no one can "get us" or "get" our ideas
when we're afraid, we take solace in negative speech - so that others will know our opinion on the fear-makers
when we're afraid, we dismiss the open hearts and ready minds of willing helpers as the actions of credit-takers and dream-thieves
when, in fact, none of this may be true
in the church world - by which i mean the world of vocational [pastoral] ministry - we are often afraid of some very mundane things
words, for example, can be terribly frightening to pastors
words like "program", "prayer", "evangelism", "free-form", "criticism", "organic", "teamwork" and a variety of others from all over a variety of word-spectrums
we're afraid of these words because we think they're used as a means of control, by either complaining congregants or overbearing bosses
which, incidently, is another thing we're afraid of - authority
pastors are wired to be lone-rangers
and, to be fair, most pastors are one-man shows
so, particularly in this age of anti-denominational-involvement and local church autonomy, we shy away from authority
but i often miss authority
not because i want more rules
but because i require other, wiser, voices in my life to help me facilitate the work of god on earth
still, we're afraid of authority because we think authority means a lack of autonomy
and it does - and i think the most recent season of my life provides rich material for proving that lesser autonomy would be healthier for more pastors. we need accountability. we need counsel. we need boundaries and guidelines to which we submit as godly men and women under the authority of the body.
we don't need to be controlled, but we do need to be accountable.
which is another thing we're afraid of - accountability
we're afraid of being held accountable [even by godly, intelligent, well-meaning people] because we're afraid of failure
we're in a prime vocation for success/failure to drive our worth and our self-image
so, the idea that our ministries may not "work" is a horribly vulnerable thought
because we feel like it means "we" don't work
but this is not true
furthermore, we've got to be willing to be appraised on our efforts
to discard those things that are ineffective, or too costly, or produce nothing of new testament spirituality
and we often need other people to help us evaluate those things in those ways
because we're too afraid of failure to do it honestly ourselves
but, we're also afraid of working with other people closely
we're afraid of teamwork because we might not always have the best answers or the best solutions
and not being able to be the best - even though we don't want to admit it - seriously undercuts the shadow beliefs most pastors secretly hold
by which i mean that we all think we ought to know better
because we all feel like everyone else expects us to be wiser than politicians, more creative than hollywood producers, and more entrepreneurial than businessmen
and we're afraid they'll find out we're really not that qualified in those kinds of ways
lastly,
i think we're afraid of ideas
we're afraid of ideas that are bigger than us - because we can't make them real or understand their significance and we think we should
we're afraid of ideas that are newer than our new ideas - because we work so hard to stay fresh, it feels like an indictment that we're not the "fresh-est"
we're afraid of ideas that prove our hypotheses wrong - because we thought our 'bright ideas' would be the 'next big thing' and they so rarely - if ever - are
i think my job these days is to try and aleviate the fears of those around me
while speaking honestly with carmel or dad or jvo about my own fears
i try to put others' fears to rest
and i try and master my own
so,
to try and advance this conversation a little further
let me put some fears to bed
we are cultivating a staff at westwinds that works around the following kinds of things:
innovation - we want everyone to dream big, to think outside the boxes they've just built [by virtue of thinking outside their previous boxes], and to feel like they're empowered to try things no one else has the freedom or the resources to try
credibility - we also want everyone to hold their ideas loosely; so, if the idea is tried, tested, given a reasonable amount of tweaking and, at the end, feels like it's not effective...then we want to go back to the drawing board and start fresh - without judgement, without complaint, without accusation
freedom - we want everyone to take the space they need to be creative, to get things done, to honor family, to honor god, and to become the best possible version of themselves; but, to paraphrase what ben parker has said so well "with great freedom, comes great responsibility"
worth - we want everyone to receive credit for their own work, value for their own contributions, and to recognize the part they play on a much larger team. we want them to know that we couldn't do anything [like what we're currently doing] without them, and that their brains, their fantasies, and their noble ambitions are welcomed and authenticated here.
i don't often write on leadership stuff on this blog
typically, leadership stuff doesn't trouble me in ways that blogging might address therapeutically
but our staff is going through a lot these days
and i wanted to be public about my love and my ambitions for them
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
more on causemology: what does god want us to do?
What does God want us to do?
Any cursory reading of the scriptures seems replete with instructions about what we’re supposed to do as followers of Jesus Christ. We’re supposed to be truthful in prayer, ethical in our conduct towards others, compassionate towards the disenfranchised, giving to the poor, generous with those in need, merciful to the outcast, sincere in our worship, studious in our treatment of the scriptures, lavish with our sacrifices, loose with the charity of our money, and exclusivity committed to the service of Christ and his church [and this is all just for starters].
To be fair, Jesus himself makes it clear that we are not bound by a laundry list of rules and regulations; but, he also makes it clear that anyone who is sincere in their affections for him and his kingdom will allow these kinds of activities, habits, and practices to flow out of them because of their newfound spirit of joy.
We ought to be doing what Jesus wants, but that doesn’t mean we have to do them all at the same time, or do them all of the time without ever thinking of Jesus’ other commands like rest, watch, and wait [sometimes adding more “stuff” to our lives is hardly god-honoring]. As such, we must become reacquainted with the notion of seasons.
Our lives move in rhythms. Some are busier than others and some are more relaxed; some are seasons of incredible study, and some are seasons of tireless play; some are seasons of spiritual fervor and discipline, some are seasons of Sabbath and the love of our families. There is no command in the scriptures to be busy in all things at all times, thereby neglecting the primary relationships that god himself has placed into our care and of which he requires our utmost commitment.
Causemology is designed to honor these seasons, creating two-month-long waves of spiritual intersection. By intentionally limiting our initial commitments to just two months, we can protect ourselves against burn out and sidestep the danger of reducing these spiritual actions into rote and habit.
So, simply, what does God want?
He wants us to be active in the world around us, not merely “hearers..but doers of the Word” [cf. James 1.22-25]. We ought to be doing…
Something for our soul
We ought to focus specifically on our individual spiritual development.
Something for our relationships
We ought to focus specifically on our relationships and God’s participation in those relationships.
Something for our church
Participation in a local church is fundamental tenet of New Testament teaching and we ignore that participation to our own peril.
Something for our world
We ought to be intimately involved in helping the world become a better place through justice, compassion, and spiritual transformation.
This list is, of course, incomplete, flawed, and unsatisfying…but it is a beginning for how we ought to live.
It is a starting point.
Any cursory reading of the scriptures seems replete with instructions about what we’re supposed to do as followers of Jesus Christ. We’re supposed to be truthful in prayer, ethical in our conduct towards others, compassionate towards the disenfranchised, giving to the poor, generous with those in need, merciful to the outcast, sincere in our worship, studious in our treatment of the scriptures, lavish with our sacrifices, loose with the charity of our money, and exclusivity committed to the service of Christ and his church [and this is all just for starters].
To be fair, Jesus himself makes it clear that we are not bound by a laundry list of rules and regulations; but, he also makes it clear that anyone who is sincere in their affections for him and his kingdom will allow these kinds of activities, habits, and practices to flow out of them because of their newfound spirit of joy.
We ought to be doing what Jesus wants, but that doesn’t mean we have to do them all at the same time, or do them all of the time without ever thinking of Jesus’ other commands like rest, watch, and wait [sometimes adding more “stuff” to our lives is hardly god-honoring]. As such, we must become reacquainted with the notion of seasons.
Our lives move in rhythms. Some are busier than others and some are more relaxed; some are seasons of incredible study, and some are seasons of tireless play; some are seasons of spiritual fervor and discipline, some are seasons of Sabbath and the love of our families. There is no command in the scriptures to be busy in all things at all times, thereby neglecting the primary relationships that god himself has placed into our care and of which he requires our utmost commitment.
Causemology is designed to honor these seasons, creating two-month-long waves of spiritual intersection. By intentionally limiting our initial commitments to just two months, we can protect ourselves against burn out and sidestep the danger of reducing these spiritual actions into rote and habit.
So, simply, what does God want?
He wants us to be active in the world around us, not merely “hearers..but doers of the Word” [cf. James 1.22-25]. We ought to be doing…
Something for our soul
We ought to focus specifically on our individual spiritual development.
Something for our relationships
We ought to focus specifically on our relationships and God’s participation in those relationships.
Something for our church
Participation in a local church is fundamental tenet of New Testament teaching and we ignore that participation to our own peril.
Something for our world
We ought to be intimately involved in helping the world become a better place through justice, compassion, and spiritual transformation.
This list is, of course, incomplete, flawed, and unsatisfying…but it is a beginning for how we ought to live.
It is a starting point.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Saturday, June 30, 2007
DOXA: sola scriptura, QUICK FACTS
this is a supplemental note to week 1 of our DOXA series at westwinds.
in an effort to help people study the bible for themselves, i've included some quick resources and suggestions both in my sermon and here online.
Q. what is the bible?
A. the bible is our ultimate authority in all manner of belief and behavior.
Q. how do we use the bible?
A. we use it for teaching, rebuking, correcting, & training in righteousness
Q. where do i start studying the bible?
A. in the old testament, i suggest you begin with 1 & 2 samuel which tells the story of king david; then i suggest you move on to isaiah, which is largely concerned with prophecies regarding jesus christ. in the new testament, i suggest you begin with the gospel of john - which many people find to be the easiest gospel to understand and digest - and then move on to paul's letters - first philippians, colossians and/or ephesians, then on to romans which is the hallmark of christian theology.
Q. what do i need to get started?
A. everyone needs a good bible. i suggest an NIV study bible for this kind of approach. in addition, you'll want to grab hold of a lexicon [i.e. a greek/hebrew/aramaic to english dictionary], a concordance [which lists all of the instances of each particular word in the bible], and a bible/theological dictionary [which helps you quickly remember all of the obscure words you'll learn in the course of your study]
Q. how do i go a little deeper in my studies?
A. the low-fi approach is through books and tapes. i recommend getting the following books to start you off:
how to read the bible for all its worth, by gordon fee and douglas stuart
how to read the bible book-by-book, by gordon fee and douglas stuart
the pocket dictionary of theological terms, by stan grenz
_____ [book of the bible, i.e. "John"] for everyone, by tom wright [a series of books]
manners and customs of bible times, by ralph gower
the hi-fi approach is through the web and through podcasts
if your a podcaster, i suggest the following two fellows in addition to the westwinds podcast
1. mark driscoll, at mars hill church in seattle
2. rob bell, at mars hill bible church in grand rapids
both are excellent bible teachers, focusing almost exlcusively on the bible and not on a bunch of other issues. mark is pretty agressive, rob is pretty emo.
in addition,
you'll want to download e-sword, found at e-sword.net, and download all of the various versions, dictionaries, commentaries, and lexical works you can. most of these are free, some require an additional fee.
you'll also want to add the following websites to your favorite links
jewishencyclopedia.com
catholicencyclopedia.com
biblegateway.com
crosswalk.com
this, of course, is merely a beginner's list at studying the bible
but i think it's pretty accessible for most people and provides a great starting point for those who newly believe, or are newly interested
happy hunting!
in an effort to help people study the bible for themselves, i've included some quick resources and suggestions both in my sermon and here online.
Q. what is the bible?
A. the bible is our ultimate authority in all manner of belief and behavior.
Q. how do we use the bible?
A. we use it for teaching, rebuking, correcting, & training in righteousness
Q. where do i start studying the bible?
A. in the old testament, i suggest you begin with 1 & 2 samuel which tells the story of king david; then i suggest you move on to isaiah, which is largely concerned with prophecies regarding jesus christ. in the new testament, i suggest you begin with the gospel of john - which many people find to be the easiest gospel to understand and digest - and then move on to paul's letters - first philippians, colossians and/or ephesians, then on to romans which is the hallmark of christian theology.
Q. what do i need to get started?
A. everyone needs a good bible. i suggest an NIV study bible for this kind of approach. in addition, you'll want to grab hold of a lexicon [i.e. a greek/hebrew/aramaic to english dictionary], a concordance [which lists all of the instances of each particular word in the bible], and a bible/theological dictionary [which helps you quickly remember all of the obscure words you'll learn in the course of your study]
Q. how do i go a little deeper in my studies?
A. the low-fi approach is through books and tapes. i recommend getting the following books to start you off:
how to read the bible for all its worth, by gordon fee and douglas stuart
how to read the bible book-by-book, by gordon fee and douglas stuart
the pocket dictionary of theological terms, by stan grenz
_____ [book of the bible, i.e. "John"] for everyone, by tom wright [a series of books]
manners and customs of bible times, by ralph gower
the hi-fi approach is through the web and through podcasts
if your a podcaster, i suggest the following two fellows in addition to the westwinds podcast
1. mark driscoll, at mars hill church in seattle
2. rob bell, at mars hill bible church in grand rapids
both are excellent bible teachers, focusing almost exlcusively on the bible and not on a bunch of other issues. mark is pretty agressive, rob is pretty emo.
in addition,
you'll want to download e-sword, found at e-sword.net, and download all of the various versions, dictionaries, commentaries, and lexical works you can. most of these are free, some require an additional fee.
you'll also want to add the following websites to your favorite links
jewishencyclopedia.com
catholicencyclopedia.com
biblegateway.com
crosswalk.com
this, of course, is merely a beginner's list at studying the bible
but i think it's pretty accessible for most people and provides a great starting point for those who newly believe, or are newly interested
happy hunting!
Friday, June 29, 2007
what is "causemology?"
Causemology is our term for the new modular ecclesiology at Westwinds [aka, it’s the way our church is going to function Monday-Saturday].
every two months we’ll be leading our church through a wave of spiritual experiences
we'll begin by getting together on a monday night
where we'll coach and guide you
through a series of spiritual competencies and habits, disicplines and activities
that will help you better experience god in your daily life
and train you to involve yourself in four key areas of christian spirituality
something for your soul [a.k.a. a spiritual disicpline]
something for your relationships [a.k.a. keeping you in community]
something for your church [a.k.a. serving at westwinds]
something for your world [a.k.a. outreach and service]
you’ll then meet with a personal coach to decide which of the many options
you’ll choose to participate in for this two-month "wave"
you’ll select one option in each of the four categories
knowing that you’re only commiting to these habits & pactices for the current wave
you’ll talk with your coach about the choices you’ve made
throughout the course of each wave
and what their impact is in your life
and then return to the next gathering at the beginning of the next wave
to select a new set of habits & pactices for the following two months
over the course of a year
you will have involved youself in a cross-section of brand new ways of exploring and investigating what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ in our ever-changing world
not bad, eh?
we think it's gonna be a cool way to integrate the various expressions of christian spirituality with the fluctuations and rhythms of 21st century life.
basically - it'll be a great way to experience a bunch of cool new stuff
without getting so busy you forget what your friends look like.
every two months we’ll be leading our church through a wave of spiritual experiences
we'll begin by getting together on a monday night
where we'll coach and guide you
through a series of spiritual competencies and habits, disicplines and activities
that will help you better experience god in your daily life
and train you to involve yourself in four key areas of christian spirituality
something for your soul [a.k.a. a spiritual disicpline]
something for your relationships [a.k.a. keeping you in community]
something for your church [a.k.a. serving at westwinds]
something for your world [a.k.a. outreach and service]
you’ll then meet with a personal coach to decide which of the many options
you’ll choose to participate in for this two-month "wave"
you’ll select one option in each of the four categories
knowing that you’re only commiting to these habits & pactices for the current wave
you’ll talk with your coach about the choices you’ve made
throughout the course of each wave
and what their impact is in your life
and then return to the next gathering at the beginning of the next wave
to select a new set of habits & pactices for the following two months
over the course of a year
you will have involved youself in a cross-section of brand new ways of exploring and investigating what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ in our ever-changing world
not bad, eh?
we think it's gonna be a cool way to integrate the various expressions of christian spirituality with the fluctuations and rhythms of 21st century life.
basically - it'll be a great way to experience a bunch of cool new stuff
without getting so busy you forget what your friends look like.
why do churches get smaller?
for many reasons...
moral failure of a senior leader
poor management
cultural irrelevance
spiritual irrelevance
etc...
however,
one *distinct reason [often overlooked]
is that churches need to feel connected to themselves
and the people in them often don't
see,
any living system must be in complete connection with itself
every part must be connected to the whole
and - by proxy - to all the other parts
in a life-giving
information-exchanging
mutually-and-environmentally-sustaining
kind of way
and if those parts are not connected
the overall system will shrink down to a size wherein they can be connected
this means that if the structure that allows all of the cells in a fern to remain connected
breaks down
then the fern will die off/get smaller
until it is whole again from within
of course,
i know very little about cellular biology [and even less about ferns]
but i do know enough to understand the implications here for churches
if our people
are not connected meaningfully to one another
then our churches will continue to shrink down to a size
where they can feel connected
so
a church of 1000 disconnected people
will naturally shrink down into a church of 300 or 100 or 50
connected people
by virtue of the hidden intent of those same people
who inadvertantly distance themselves from newcomers
or withdraw from mere strangers at church
because they cannot cope with any more fragile or meaningless
connections
if attendance and involvement are in any way
factors that we care about at all
then we must look to the health of our churches
and the connections of our people
people need other people to help them grow spiritually
to speak intelligently and with wisdom into their lives
to rebuke them when they're truant
to correct them when they're wrong
to encourage them when they're down
to cheer them on when they're winning
but these things don't ever happen in a weekend worship experience
they only happen in some other venue of connectedness
to be fair
the venue itself doesn't matter
whether that's old-school-sunday-school, cell groups, informal connections, or something else
all that matters is that people stay connected
for their individual health
for the health of the community
for the health of the church
and
intuitively all of our people know this
but we forget it
to our own peril
stay connected.
moral failure of a senior leader
poor management
cultural irrelevance
spiritual irrelevance
etc...
however,
one *distinct reason [often overlooked]
is that churches need to feel connected to themselves
and the people in them often don't
see,
any living system must be in complete connection with itself
every part must be connected to the whole
and - by proxy - to all the other parts
in a life-giving
information-exchanging
mutually-and-environmentally-sustaining
kind of way
and if those parts are not connected
the overall system will shrink down to a size wherein they can be connected
this means that if the structure that allows all of the cells in a fern to remain connected
breaks down
then the fern will die off/get smaller
until it is whole again from within
of course,
i know very little about cellular biology [and even less about ferns]
but i do know enough to understand the implications here for churches
if our people
are not connected meaningfully to one another
then our churches will continue to shrink down to a size
where they can feel connected
so
a church of 1000 disconnected people
will naturally shrink down into a church of 300 or 100 or 50
connected people
by virtue of the hidden intent of those same people
who inadvertantly distance themselves from newcomers
or withdraw from mere strangers at church
because they cannot cope with any more fragile or meaningless
connections
if attendance and involvement are in any way
factors that we care about at all
then we must look to the health of our churches
and the connections of our people
people need other people to help them grow spiritually
to speak intelligently and with wisdom into their lives
to rebuke them when they're truant
to correct them when they're wrong
to encourage them when they're down
to cheer them on when they're winning
but these things don't ever happen in a weekend worship experience
they only happen in some other venue of connectedness
to be fair
the venue itself doesn't matter
whether that's old-school-sunday-school, cell groups, informal connections, or something else
all that matters is that people stay connected
for their individual health
for the health of the community
for the health of the church
and
intuitively all of our people know this
but we forget it
to our own peril
stay connected.
Friday, June 22, 2007
math?
the more i study theology
the more i realize it's like math
which sucks
because i'm terrible at math
but love theology
and yet
i find myself growing quickly in my theological understanding
while - at the same time - recognizing how little "math" one genuinely needs to be a legitimate lover and follower of jesus christ
so...
i've come to think of it like this
theology is like math
in that there are certain definate & true answers to certain questions
and that there are applications for theology/math well outside of the strict discipline of theology/math
and that theology/math affects our daily lives without most of us even noticing it
and - perhaps most 'sexily' - that theology/math contain much room for hypothesis, rumination, and speculation about meaning and significance in real life stuff
in order for someone to truly to be considered a lover and follower of jesus
i believe they ought to work hard at understanding basic math
they ought to know how to add and subtract
they ought to ascribe to something basic [like the nicene creed, even with its many theological pinholes that so much of evangelicalism is fond of fighting over]
for me
and for many other pastors
however
we need to know more than addition and subtraction
we need to know - at least - calculus and algebra
so as to see the deeper levels of meaning and the use of numbers/texts
what concerns me is how many "famous" pastors seem only to have grasped
what looks like multiplication or, far too often, division
to be fair
we truly cannot judge their worth from a distance
and - even if we could - it would unethical for us to do so
without, at least, acknowledging their noble purpose and being in some manner of relationship [either professional or personal] with them
but
if we're honest
we do need to be clear that more is required of pastor/teachers than simply addition/subtraction, multiplication/division
for myself
i've humorously recognized that my particular bent is towards
applied theology/math
applied mathematics is the field of study concerned with stuff that makes a visible difference in real life
with the analysis of the world around us
and positive suggestions for how it could be improved
or better utilized and/or enjoyed
theologically speaking
i love to think through the hyper-complicated parts of faith [i.e. the real and complex numbers, number theory, etc...], but am only concerned with them insofar as they help us all connect more meaningfully with jesus and with the world around us.
perhaps this is a useful way to understand my contribution to the world around me
the more i realize it's like math
which sucks
because i'm terrible at math
but love theology
and yet
i find myself growing quickly in my theological understanding
while - at the same time - recognizing how little "math" one genuinely needs to be a legitimate lover and follower of jesus christ
so...
i've come to think of it like this
theology is like math
in that there are certain definate & true answers to certain questions
and that there are applications for theology/math well outside of the strict discipline of theology/math
and that theology/math affects our daily lives without most of us even noticing it
and - perhaps most 'sexily' - that theology/math contain much room for hypothesis, rumination, and speculation about meaning and significance in real life stuff
in order for someone to truly to be considered a lover and follower of jesus
i believe they ought to work hard at understanding basic math
they ought to know how to add and subtract
they ought to ascribe to something basic [like the nicene creed, even with its many theological pinholes that so much of evangelicalism is fond of fighting over]
for me
and for many other pastors
however
we need to know more than addition and subtraction
we need to know - at least - calculus and algebra
so as to see the deeper levels of meaning and the use of numbers/texts
what concerns me is how many "famous" pastors seem only to have grasped
what looks like multiplication or, far too often, division
to be fair
we truly cannot judge their worth from a distance
and - even if we could - it would unethical for us to do so
without, at least, acknowledging their noble purpose and being in some manner of relationship [either professional or personal] with them
but
if we're honest
we do need to be clear that more is required of pastor/teachers than simply addition/subtraction, multiplication/division
for myself
i've humorously recognized that my particular bent is towards
applied theology/math
applied mathematics is the field of study concerned with stuff that makes a visible difference in real life
with the analysis of the world around us
and positive suggestions for how it could be improved
or better utilized and/or enjoyed
theologically speaking
i love to think through the hyper-complicated parts of faith [i.e. the real and complex numbers, number theory, etc...], but am only concerned with them insofar as they help us all connect more meaningfully with jesus and with the world around us.
perhaps this is a useful way to understand my contribution to the world around me
Sunday, June 10, 2007
words that drive me nuts: organic
"organic" is a term oft applied in the word of business/leadership/management
it was originally coined in this way to refer to the autopoeitic emergence [i.e. self-creation] of healthy systems that reproduce other, similar healthy systems; also, it was a reference to denote how unhealthy systems will naturally become healthy if permitted to self-diagnose and sustain [though, that may include removal of certain agents/persons contributing to the unhealth of the overall system].
these days,
however,
the term is often reduced to the functional opting out of managerial responsibility
wherein leaders don't lead or provide direction
because it's not "organic"
in churches
there is a great fascination with organic terminology
in part because of the obvious crossovers with jesus' teaching on spirituality
however,
the term seems most applied in churches as a way to kind of sex-up whatever program
the church is promoting these days
all of thus bugs me
and,
since blogs really do tend to be about stuff that bugs bloggers,
i thought i'd offer something a little more helpful in the way of understanding what it truly means to be organic
1. "organics" is truly about people
...and people don't "run" like machines. people cannot be controlled and be simultaneously passionate/creative. leadership in churches is organic because the people in our churches will do whatever they want, regardless of whether or not we want them to do it.
says mag wheately:
"it is important to recognize that people never behave like machines. when given directions, we insist on putting our own unique spin on them. when told to follow orders, we resist in obvious or subtle ways. when told to accept someone else's solution or to institute a program created elsewhere, we deny that it has sufficient value."
2. managing living systems/cultivating health/sustaining growth
... the only way forwards, then, is to look to the system-as-a-whole. we can influence the system towards health/growth/sustainability, which isn't "in-organic" just a recognition that we - as leaders - are also part of the larger system and, as such, our role in the system may be to influence the overall web towards things that are more true, more beautiful, and/or more good.
3. paying attention to what's naturally happening around you
...the best way to do this - at least, it seems this way in 12+ years of ministry - is to notice the good things around you and publicly laud and authenticate them, providing rationale/teaching for why, exactly, they are so beautiful/true/good; and, to notice the absence of critical things in the system and try and introduce them through the manifestation of growing concern about their absence in the other people involved [i.e. make everyone aware of how screwy it is that "compassion" - for example - is noticeably absent in our churches, and then help them realize what "compassion" might look like in their locale].
this is just a start
but i just can't simply be bothered by misuse of "organic"
when
in actual fact
this kind of orientation towards faith/leadership/systems truly is one of the greatest perspectival gifts of the 21st c.
it was originally coined in this way to refer to the autopoeitic emergence [i.e. self-creation] of healthy systems that reproduce other, similar healthy systems; also, it was a reference to denote how unhealthy systems will naturally become healthy if permitted to self-diagnose and sustain [though, that may include removal of certain agents/persons contributing to the unhealth of the overall system].
these days,
however,
the term is often reduced to the functional opting out of managerial responsibility
wherein leaders don't lead or provide direction
because it's not "organic"
in churches
there is a great fascination with organic terminology
in part because of the obvious crossovers with jesus' teaching on spirituality
however,
the term seems most applied in churches as a way to kind of sex-up whatever program
the church is promoting these days
all of thus bugs me
and,
since blogs really do tend to be about stuff that bugs bloggers,
i thought i'd offer something a little more helpful in the way of understanding what it truly means to be organic
1. "organics" is truly about people
...and people don't "run" like machines. people cannot be controlled and be simultaneously passionate/creative. leadership in churches is organic because the people in our churches will do whatever they want, regardless of whether or not we want them to do it.
says mag wheately:
"it is important to recognize that people never behave like machines. when given directions, we insist on putting our own unique spin on them. when told to follow orders, we resist in obvious or subtle ways. when told to accept someone else's solution or to institute a program created elsewhere, we deny that it has sufficient value."
2. managing living systems/cultivating health/sustaining growth
... the only way forwards, then, is to look to the system-as-a-whole. we can influence the system towards health/growth/sustainability, which isn't "in-organic" just a recognition that we - as leaders - are also part of the larger system and, as such, our role in the system may be to influence the overall web towards things that are more true, more beautiful, and/or more good.
3. paying attention to what's naturally happening around you
...the best way to do this - at least, it seems this way in 12+ years of ministry - is to notice the good things around you and publicly laud and authenticate them, providing rationale/teaching for why, exactly, they are so beautiful/true/good; and, to notice the absence of critical things in the system and try and introduce them through the manifestation of growing concern about their absence in the other people involved [i.e. make everyone aware of how screwy it is that "compassion" - for example - is noticeably absent in our churches, and then help them realize what "compassion" might look like in their locale].
this is just a start
but i just can't simply be bothered by misuse of "organic"
when
in actual fact
this kind of orientation towards faith/leadership/systems truly is one of the greatest perspectival gifts of the 21st c.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
jesus and paul
i've come into a few discussions lately about people who seem eager to dismiss the apostle paul from conversations about christianity.
their claim is that paul somehow misrepresented jesus, thereby hijacking christianity and making it into something other than what jesus himself intended.
in their minds, the theology of jesus [and the kingdom] is very different from the theology of paul [and christianity]; and, if we're true christ-followers, we'll focus far, far less on paul than on jesus.
because,
after all,
paul only quotes jesus once in all his letters
and only references the gospel stories 4-5 times
however,
i think there are a couple of giant leaps made in this kind of thinking
dangerous leaps
first of all,
the great worth of jesus christ is not primarily his teaching
...it's HIMself
don't get me wrong - jesus' teachings are crucial
but he was more than just a good moral teacher
he is the resurrected
glorified
son-of-man
prophecied about
who superceded the messianic expectations of his friends and followers
and manifested divinity in a skin suit
he is god
when we take away these important
little details
we're left with only a better ghandi
and a better ghandi in no way addresses the real metaphysical issue
of our separation from our creator
ghandi can't atone for sin
and we do need atonement
even though that's not a popular understanding these days
the second big flaw i see in this silly line of reasoning
is the arrogant assumption that a 21st century american
somehow beter understands the local context of a 1st century palestinian jew
than the apostle paul
who was, himself, a 1st century palestinian jew
i mean
how did we get so full of ourselves
that we think we would be able to magically understand something about jewish messianic expectation that paul would not have understood
or sacrificial atonement
or the nature of god
or the promise to abraham
furthermore,
if paul had totally screwed up the reality of christ
peter
james
john
and all of the other disciples whom paul knew personally
would have set him straight
instead
it was repeatedly paul who set the disciples straight
because they kept making the gospel smaller and smaller
focusing on just jews
focusing on just the legality of righteousness
now,
i do understand that the gospels were all written after paul's missionary journeys were completed
and i do understand that john mark, who wrote the gospel of mark [aka peter's account of jesus' life] traveled with him
so there are some who say that maybe the gospels were a correction of paul's misunderstandings
but this is an argument from silence
...and a silly one at that
so,
how do we best understand jesus?
is it by his teaching alone?
or is it also by the work of the new testament theologians who made his identity and significance clear?
right.
i know.
i shouldn't even have asked the question.
their claim is that paul somehow misrepresented jesus, thereby hijacking christianity and making it into something other than what jesus himself intended.
in their minds, the theology of jesus [and the kingdom] is very different from the theology of paul [and christianity]; and, if we're true christ-followers, we'll focus far, far less on paul than on jesus.
because,
after all,
paul only quotes jesus once in all his letters
and only references the gospel stories 4-5 times
however,
i think there are a couple of giant leaps made in this kind of thinking
dangerous leaps
first of all,
the great worth of jesus christ is not primarily his teaching
...it's HIMself
don't get me wrong - jesus' teachings are crucial
but he was more than just a good moral teacher
he is the resurrected
glorified
son-of-man
prophecied about
who superceded the messianic expectations of his friends and followers
and manifested divinity in a skin suit
he is god
when we take away these important
little details
we're left with only a better ghandi
and a better ghandi in no way addresses the real metaphysical issue
of our separation from our creator
ghandi can't atone for sin
and we do need atonement
even though that's not a popular understanding these days
the second big flaw i see in this silly line of reasoning
is the arrogant assumption that a 21st century american
somehow beter understands the local context of a 1st century palestinian jew
than the apostle paul
who was, himself, a 1st century palestinian jew
i mean
how did we get so full of ourselves
that we think we would be able to magically understand something about jewish messianic expectation that paul would not have understood
or sacrificial atonement
or the nature of god
or the promise to abraham
furthermore,
if paul had totally screwed up the reality of christ
peter
james
john
and all of the other disciples whom paul knew personally
would have set him straight
instead
it was repeatedly paul who set the disciples straight
because they kept making the gospel smaller and smaller
focusing on just jews
focusing on just the legality of righteousness
now,
i do understand that the gospels were all written after paul's missionary journeys were completed
and i do understand that john mark, who wrote the gospel of mark [aka peter's account of jesus' life] traveled with him
so there are some who say that maybe the gospels were a correction of paul's misunderstandings
but this is an argument from silence
...and a silly one at that
so,
how do we best understand jesus?
is it by his teaching alone?
or is it also by the work of the new testament theologians who made his identity and significance clear?
right.
i know.
i shouldn't even have asked the question.
Friday, May 25, 2007
rocks and stones cry out
i once heard darlene zschech talk about luke 19.40, wherein jesus tells some passersby that if his disciples keep quiet about his claim to divine authority that the 'rocks and stones will cry out'
meaning that the rocks will begin to praise god
if we don't
now,
i've heard that interpretation before
but darlene gave it a cool twist
she cited songs like audioslave's "show me how to live"
and dishwalla's "counting blue cars"
and films like "the matrix"
or "the fountain"
as examples of rocks and stones crying out
it was just a cool spin
on how revelatory the art of the unfound
can truly be
meaning that the rocks will begin to praise god
if we don't
now,
i've heard that interpretation before
but darlene gave it a cool twist
she cited songs like audioslave's "show me how to live"
and dishwalla's "counting blue cars"
and films like "the matrix"
or "the fountain"
as examples of rocks and stones crying out
it was just a cool spin
on how revelatory the art of the unfound
can truly be
thinking, speaking, writing
it seems like this is all i do.
think
speak
write
and, somedays, it's a little trippy to get my head around
i mean
for the first 10 years of ministry
i understood my role as much more of a pastor/shepherd
i did a lot of mentoring
i worked hard to develop strong relationships with my "people" [whom i never thought of - and still don't - as "people", they're just my friends]
and i understood pastoring primarily in terms of relationships
to be honest,
i still understand it that way
but my life just isn't that way anymore
these days
it's just more thinking
it's just more speaking
it's just more writing
i think ad naseum
i read everything i can get my hands on
i've done 15 magazine subscriptions
i read a complete non-fiction book every 3-4 days
i read a lot of fiction
and all of my reading just barely keeps me fueled enough
barely keeps up my ammunition
to keep thinking
thinking about how the church needs to etymologize for the present world
not to mention the future world [which is it's own category of thought]
thinking about how to better communicate the full gospel to our world
via live experiences and via the web/podcasts/utube, etc...
thinking about key doctrines
particularly soteriology, hamartiology, pneumatatology
and how they jive in this new world in new ways
ways we may never have fully appreciated before
thinking about dissipative ecclesial structures
and modular methods for leading a growing church
not to mention
personal development thoughts
family thoughts [my fav]
god thoughts
or backyard dreams/plans
and after i've begun thinking
i find myself with a shortage of time before i have to speak
i mean
a lot of my life is about talking
and not just preaching/teaching
i mean,
i end up talking for most of my work days
it's good talk
it's fun/work talk
but some days
i actually pray
"god,
please don't make me talk anymore today"
please.
and then i've got to synthesize
my thoughts
with my teachings
with my reflections
and my conversations
with the collaborations and contributions of friends and critics
so that i can write it all down for someone to make sense of later.
[and, no - in my mind, blogging doesn't count as writing. so, please don't imagine me sitting in my office logged on to blogspot for any more than a furious 5 min. at a time]
currently,
in addition to our teaching atlases
we're spinning out
what will be
about a 200 page "booklet"
on the core doctrines of the christian faith
and a 100 page "booklet"
on a new modular ecclesiology
that will completely reengineer the way our church works
and i'm very excited about completing both writing assignments
so i can play on our new trampoline
with my fantastic son
my beautiful 1yr. daughter
and the everlasting love of my life
who i duper into marrying me 9 years ago
ok...time to go.
think
speak
write
and, somedays, it's a little trippy to get my head around
i mean
for the first 10 years of ministry
i understood my role as much more of a pastor/shepherd
i did a lot of mentoring
i worked hard to develop strong relationships with my "people" [whom i never thought of - and still don't - as "people", they're just my friends]
and i understood pastoring primarily in terms of relationships
to be honest,
i still understand it that way
but my life just isn't that way anymore
these days
it's just more thinking
it's just more speaking
it's just more writing
i think ad naseum
i read everything i can get my hands on
i've done 15 magazine subscriptions
i read a complete non-fiction book every 3-4 days
i read a lot of fiction
and all of my reading just barely keeps me fueled enough
barely keeps up my ammunition
to keep thinking
thinking about how the church needs to etymologize for the present world
not to mention the future world [which is it's own category of thought]
thinking about how to better communicate the full gospel to our world
via live experiences and via the web/podcasts/utube, etc...
thinking about key doctrines
particularly soteriology, hamartiology, pneumatatology
and how they jive in this new world in new ways
ways we may never have fully appreciated before
thinking about dissipative ecclesial structures
and modular methods for leading a growing church
not to mention
personal development thoughts
family thoughts [my fav]
god thoughts
or backyard dreams/plans
and after i've begun thinking
i find myself with a shortage of time before i have to speak
i mean
a lot of my life is about talking
and not just preaching/teaching
i mean,
i end up talking for most of my work days
it's good talk
it's fun/work talk
but some days
i actually pray
"god,
please don't make me talk anymore today"
please.
and then i've got to synthesize
my thoughts
with my teachings
with my reflections
and my conversations
with the collaborations and contributions of friends and critics
so that i can write it all down for someone to make sense of later.
[and, no - in my mind, blogging doesn't count as writing. so, please don't imagine me sitting in my office logged on to blogspot for any more than a furious 5 min. at a time]
currently,
in addition to our teaching atlases
we're spinning out
what will be
about a 200 page "booklet"
on the core doctrines of the christian faith
and a 100 page "booklet"
on a new modular ecclesiology
that will completely reengineer the way our church works
and i'm very excited about completing both writing assignments
so i can play on our new trampoline
with my fantastic son
my beautiful 1yr. daughter
and the everlasting love of my life
who i duper into marrying me 9 years ago
ok...time to go.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
the sins of pentecost & the sins of evangelicalism: an overview
ironically, there is no written definition for sin in the bible.
there are lexical studies on the greek [hamartia] and hebrew [chata', chet, etc...] words
and there are descriptions about what the effects of sin are
but there's no space in scripture that says "sin means ______"
so i've been looking for such a definition that is true to scripture, and makes sense for real life
and i've grown fond of defining sin as 'the breaking of relationship.'
it works spiritually because our sin separates us from god - and that, really, is why sin is "bad"...because we're no longer connected to our creator
it works practically because our sins against one another separate us from one another. when we lie or cheat or say hurtful things, they alienate us and dehumanize both the victim and the oppressor
but one of the reasons i've tried to better understand sin
is because of the things we do to one another
that the bible never truly addresses
but that feel so wrong
so, so wrong
and i'm not sure what else to call these things except 'sin'
and,
after a little hamartiological digging
i'm fairly convinced that that is exactly what they are
let me give you an example
i grew up pentecostal
and, i've come to understand, pentecostals as a larger cross-section of christendom
have their own sin-set
[to be fair, i am addressing the worst of pentecost here, not the norm]
their sin-set includes things like
- spiritual manipulation, wherein someone uses language that makes it sound like the holy spirit wants someone else to obey the person speaking. for example, this may be use in awful instances, like "the lord told me that you are quenching the holy spirit" or, "god wants you to know that he is unhappy with your waywardness and your ear-piercings." to be fair, some of the "spiritual perspective" may - at times - even be valid [certainly, if we claim to believe the new testament, we must also claim to believe that god still speaks to people today], so my sin-label doesn't apply to the practice so much as it applies to the manipulative intent behind the exercise of that practice.
- misuse of scripture, by which i refer to the often hilarious instances of proof-texting for which pentecostals are lampooned. for example, citing 1 cor.6.19-20 [re: your body is the temple of the holy spirit] as "proof" against anything and everything they don't want you to do because it's not proper. so, that text then is somehow supposed to mean that we shouldn't drink anything, wear certain kinds of clothing, get any kind of tattoo or body piercing, and refrain from all extreme sports because our bodies are "temples." now, again, to be fair - there may be real wisdom in cautioning people against some of these practices - but that text is not about any of those things and we should be very wary of mis-applying it. that text is about sexual immorality. in fact, in most versions of the bible vv.12-20 are even labelled "sexual immorality", so i get puzzled as to why we think they're about something else.
- sense of superiority, this refers to the idea that pentecostals commonly hold wherein they see themselves as special, above and beyond other christians, because they experience the power of the holy spirit in a richness and a depth that no one else seems to either [a] want, or [b] care about.
to be totally transparent, they may even be right - but the sin is the fact that they allow that special quality to separate them from the rest of christendom, and - at worst - they begin to associate anyone without such an "experience of god" to the camp[s] of either backslider, heretic, or catholic.
* * * * * * *
now,
since moving to michigan
i've become aware of a funny difference between pentecostals and the rest of evangelicalism
a difference i was certainly not prepared for
see,
the sins of evangelicalism
are different than the sins of pentecost
pentecostals break relationship
because of their deep convictions about experiencing the holy spirit
evangelicals break relationship
because of their deep convictions about the truth of scripture
and i,
naively,
thought their sins would be the same
i thought i'd still be fighting the mis-application of proof texts
i thought i'd still be slowly, patiently, trying to reason someone out of calling fire and judgement upon the worship leader for not flowing with the spirit
i was not prepared at all for the following sins of evangelicalism
- apologetical pugilism, wherein i mean that evangelicals love to fight about every single point of doctrine [either major or minor, central or peripheral] and are willing to hate one another over varying interpretations of scripture. to be honest, i'm still reeling from this with disbelief - in pentecostal circles, this is the very reason why we never associated with outsider/broader evangelicalism. every week, i teach the bible to a degree of depth that i rarely hear advocated. i study hard, check all my sources, re-check the underlying theological premises of my statements and assertions; and, if i'm ever wrong, i try and publicly make it right. but the amount of smarmy, overconfident, critical [not to mention WRONG] feedback that i get about this-or-that minor doctrinal issue still baffles me. i'm just never sure how to react - i mean, how do you respond to the 18 year old bible college know-it-all who has only ever read one theologian and that guy happened to be his dad/professor? i always find myself torn between polite dismissal of their ignorance, and the carnal desire to unleash the full bore of my mental acumen and theological study on someone who could never withstand the heat of my self-righteousness.
it's the reason i disabled posts on my blog
i just couldn't continue to hear from people whose theology was incomplete at best
but who felt the freedom to question mine with an air of disdain and superiority
it was making me too angry
and i'm in ministry to connect people with jesus christ
not to defend myself against know-it-alls and dissenters
- practical gnosticism is the other big evangelical sin i've come up against since moving to michigan. we're really quick to make divisions between the life of the mind and the life of the spirit, between right thinking and right relationship - and we always seem to prioritize the brain at the expense of the heart. where apologetical pugilism deals with the aggression of "rightness", my concern with practical gnosticism lies with the dismissal of the interior life. we just don't pay near enough attention to what god is speaking to us [sometimes it seems like no one even believes he is], or to becoming more malleable to his will in each moment. of all the evils i've looked at, this one makes me the most sad.
* * * * * *
this post - i realize - is pretty overbearing. in fact, i probably should have put some kind of disclaimer on the top warning everyone of my grouchiness.
but let me close with a couple of short things
1. i wrestle with my own sin, so when i point out the broad-stroke sins of two movements i'm not trying to get even or be vindictive. i'm trying to help others who've struggled with the effects of these sins get some perspective on what to watch out for.
2. westwinds, where i presently serve, has been a wonderful mix of the BEST of both pentecost and evangelicalism. i have always been pleasantly surprised by the low amount of garbage i've personally had to deal with here, even with the messy circumstances that existed upon my arrival.
3. i'm really trying to train myself to be aware of my own propensity for judgement...and i'll probably spend a lot of time repenting/reflecting for being so abrupt on this post. maybe, though, it will also serve as a trigger for me to ask myself whether or not i display the perils of either movement in greater relief than their merits.
too much?
too early?
well, long-windedness certainly counts as a member of the teaching pastor sin-set, so i guess that's to be expected :)
there are lexical studies on the greek [hamartia] and hebrew [chata', chet, etc...] words
and there are descriptions about what the effects of sin are
but there's no space in scripture that says "sin means ______"
so i've been looking for such a definition that is true to scripture, and makes sense for real life
and i've grown fond of defining sin as 'the breaking of relationship.'
it works spiritually because our sin separates us from god - and that, really, is why sin is "bad"...because we're no longer connected to our creator
it works practically because our sins against one another separate us from one another. when we lie or cheat or say hurtful things, they alienate us and dehumanize both the victim and the oppressor
but one of the reasons i've tried to better understand sin
is because of the things we do to one another
that the bible never truly addresses
but that feel so wrong
so, so wrong
and i'm not sure what else to call these things except 'sin'
and,
after a little hamartiological digging
i'm fairly convinced that that is exactly what they are
let me give you an example
i grew up pentecostal
and, i've come to understand, pentecostals as a larger cross-section of christendom
have their own sin-set
[to be fair, i am addressing the worst of pentecost here, not the norm]
their sin-set includes things like
- spiritual manipulation, wherein someone uses language that makes it sound like the holy spirit wants someone else to obey the person speaking. for example, this may be use in awful instances, like "the lord told me that you are quenching the holy spirit" or, "god wants you to know that he is unhappy with your waywardness and your ear-piercings." to be fair, some of the "spiritual perspective" may - at times - even be valid [certainly, if we claim to believe the new testament, we must also claim to believe that god still speaks to people today], so my sin-label doesn't apply to the practice so much as it applies to the manipulative intent behind the exercise of that practice.
- misuse of scripture, by which i refer to the often hilarious instances of proof-texting for which pentecostals are lampooned. for example, citing 1 cor.6.19-20 [re: your body is the temple of the holy spirit] as "proof" against anything and everything they don't want you to do because it's not proper. so, that text then is somehow supposed to mean that we shouldn't drink anything, wear certain kinds of clothing, get any kind of tattoo or body piercing, and refrain from all extreme sports because our bodies are "temples." now, again, to be fair - there may be real wisdom in cautioning people against some of these practices - but that text is not about any of those things and we should be very wary of mis-applying it. that text is about sexual immorality. in fact, in most versions of the bible vv.12-20 are even labelled "sexual immorality", so i get puzzled as to why we think they're about something else.
- sense of superiority, this refers to the idea that pentecostals commonly hold wherein they see themselves as special, above and beyond other christians, because they experience the power of the holy spirit in a richness and a depth that no one else seems to either [a] want, or [b] care about.
to be totally transparent, they may even be right - but the sin is the fact that they allow that special quality to separate them from the rest of christendom, and - at worst - they begin to associate anyone without such an "experience of god" to the camp[s] of either backslider, heretic, or catholic.
* * * * * * *
now,
since moving to michigan
i've become aware of a funny difference between pentecostals and the rest of evangelicalism
a difference i was certainly not prepared for
see,
the sins of evangelicalism
are different than the sins of pentecost
pentecostals break relationship
because of their deep convictions about experiencing the holy spirit
evangelicals break relationship
because of their deep convictions about the truth of scripture
and i,
naively,
thought their sins would be the same
i thought i'd still be fighting the mis-application of proof texts
i thought i'd still be slowly, patiently, trying to reason someone out of calling fire and judgement upon the worship leader for not flowing with the spirit
i was not prepared at all for the following sins of evangelicalism
- apologetical pugilism, wherein i mean that evangelicals love to fight about every single point of doctrine [either major or minor, central or peripheral] and are willing to hate one another over varying interpretations of scripture. to be honest, i'm still reeling from this with disbelief - in pentecostal circles, this is the very reason why we never associated with outsider/broader evangelicalism. every week, i teach the bible to a degree of depth that i rarely hear advocated. i study hard, check all my sources, re-check the underlying theological premises of my statements and assertions; and, if i'm ever wrong, i try and publicly make it right. but the amount of smarmy, overconfident, critical [not to mention WRONG] feedback that i get about this-or-that minor doctrinal issue still baffles me. i'm just never sure how to react - i mean, how do you respond to the 18 year old bible college know-it-all who has only ever read one theologian and that guy happened to be his dad/professor? i always find myself torn between polite dismissal of their ignorance, and the carnal desire to unleash the full bore of my mental acumen and theological study on someone who could never withstand the heat of my self-righteousness.
it's the reason i disabled posts on my blog
i just couldn't continue to hear from people whose theology was incomplete at best
but who felt the freedom to question mine with an air of disdain and superiority
it was making me too angry
and i'm in ministry to connect people with jesus christ
not to defend myself against know-it-alls and dissenters
- practical gnosticism is the other big evangelical sin i've come up against since moving to michigan. we're really quick to make divisions between the life of the mind and the life of the spirit, between right thinking and right relationship - and we always seem to prioritize the brain at the expense of the heart. where apologetical pugilism deals with the aggression of "rightness", my concern with practical gnosticism lies with the dismissal of the interior life. we just don't pay near enough attention to what god is speaking to us [sometimes it seems like no one even believes he is], or to becoming more malleable to his will in each moment. of all the evils i've looked at, this one makes me the most sad.
* * * * * *
this post - i realize - is pretty overbearing. in fact, i probably should have put some kind of disclaimer on the top warning everyone of my grouchiness.
but let me close with a couple of short things
1. i wrestle with my own sin, so when i point out the broad-stroke sins of two movements i'm not trying to get even or be vindictive. i'm trying to help others who've struggled with the effects of these sins get some perspective on what to watch out for.
2. westwinds, where i presently serve, has been a wonderful mix of the BEST of both pentecost and evangelicalism. i have always been pleasantly surprised by the low amount of garbage i've personally had to deal with here, even with the messy circumstances that existed upon my arrival.
3. i'm really trying to train myself to be aware of my own propensity for judgement...and i'll probably spend a lot of time repenting/reflecting for being so abrupt on this post. maybe, though, it will also serve as a trigger for me to ask myself whether or not i display the perils of either movement in greater relief than their merits.
too much?
too early?
well, long-windedness certainly counts as a member of the teaching pastor sin-set, so i guess that's to be expected :)
Thursday, May 17, 2007
causemology
i've been working for months now on something new for westwinds
to be fair, i've not been working alone on this
jvo and randy have been heavily involved
as have most of our staff [and elders], in one form or another
and so have many of my friends from other countries, places, and backgrounds
as well as the numerous authors [like capra, myers, foster, weston, senge, merton] and thinkers [sweet, dad, richardson], and artists [warhol, yorke, and anyone who's ever been featured in communication arts]
which is all very cool
because - here at the middle-end - i feel like we truly have something significant to offer our church.
coming this september, we'll be unloading a truly open-source, self-emerging, missional ecclesiology that will allow each person who participates to learn/grow/exhcange/experience/think/believe/love/care/know god & our world in new ways.
and i'm really looking forwards to that
it may be the one great contribution we're able to offer our church
to be fair, i've not been working alone on this
jvo and randy have been heavily involved
as have most of our staff [and elders], in one form or another
and so have many of my friends from other countries, places, and backgrounds
as well as the numerous authors [like capra, myers, foster, weston, senge, merton] and thinkers [sweet, dad, richardson], and artists [warhol, yorke, and anyone who's ever been featured in communication arts]
which is all very cool
because - here at the middle-end - i feel like we truly have something significant to offer our church.
coming this september, we'll be unloading a truly open-source, self-emerging, missional ecclesiology that will allow each person who participates to learn/grow/exhcange/experience/think/believe/love/care/know god & our world in new ways.
and i'm really looking forwards to that
it may be the one great contribution we're able to offer our church
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
fauxthenticity
i recently read an article in fast company magazine about how big brands are fighting hard to "stay true" their ethos/identity.
it seems that companies like starbucks and hagen daas are finding it increasingly difficult to be unique in a world so full of imitators.
the article, of course, reminds me of all the funny conversations we have in the emerging church about authenticity - and i thought i might take a few lines here to delineate the dangers of that kind of orientation
one may be that we're not truly honest about things that are wrong - using, instead, authenticity as a kind of insulation against recognizing our sinfulness. for example, many times i've heard people say brutally horrible things to one another under the guise of "just being authentic and/or transparent", as if our truthfulness to ourselves should somehow excuse our willful harm to another.
another danger of the way we conceptualize authenticity is the way in which we seem to decry everything that anyone else has ever done [as per our frequent criticisms of mega churches and/or successful churches]. we become so caught up in our own brand [which, if we're honest, is still mostly defined by our reactions against the brand of our precedents] that anything that looks/smells like success must somehow be "inauthentic" because we didn't think/dream of it first. this, i think is a very hard truth for us to reconcile with because so many of us have been hurt by the ecclesial machine of american christianity; but, we must repent of this alienation and recognize that much we identify as "authentic" is truly only pride and resentment.
my final notice of our use of authenticity, though, bears the title of this post - 'fauxthenticity' - wherein we participate in the worst kind of fakery by claiming to be authentic with one another but still not really caring about each other. in this scenario, we observe people who are highly familiarized with the concept of "authenticity" and have - ironically - become desensitized to it; so, we use the concept as a frame and a justification for our words and deeds, but have actually stopped engaging the spirit of god and the people around us. we've become fake.
in fact, much of what we [in the emerging/progressional/experimental/lab church] do feels increasingly fake.
we have our own pet publishers
our own conferences
our own blogosphere
and there feels like less and less room for outside influence to penetrate our world
perhaps we've spent so much time defending ourselves against fundamentalists and self-relfecting apologists that we've stopped innovating?
perhaps, in our sincere efforts to be more than just a brand, we've lost the essence of what made us special?
there seems little enough published about interdisciplinary mediums
less about innovations in ministry perspectives/forums/models/rubrics [and, yes, i know model can often be counterfeit measures of spiritual effectiveness, but models are neither wholly good nor wholly bad and criticizing a system/structure/model for being flawed in-and-of-itself ultimately produces the great dual fruits of uselessness and superiority]
to all this i suggest we add to our working vocabulary words like truth and rightness [with all french literary deconstructionist tendencies invoked, nonetheless] and, more importantly, that we add verve, enthusiasm, creative capital, and passion back into our repetoire.
we've become staid academics and rote defenders of an orthopraxy we're no longer reinventing.
sorry for the rant
i'm just being authentic :)
it seems that companies like starbucks and hagen daas are finding it increasingly difficult to be unique in a world so full of imitators.
the article, of course, reminds me of all the funny conversations we have in the emerging church about authenticity - and i thought i might take a few lines here to delineate the dangers of that kind of orientation
one may be that we're not truly honest about things that are wrong - using, instead, authenticity as a kind of insulation against recognizing our sinfulness. for example, many times i've heard people say brutally horrible things to one another under the guise of "just being authentic and/or transparent", as if our truthfulness to ourselves should somehow excuse our willful harm to another.
another danger of the way we conceptualize authenticity is the way in which we seem to decry everything that anyone else has ever done [as per our frequent criticisms of mega churches and/or successful churches]. we become so caught up in our own brand [which, if we're honest, is still mostly defined by our reactions against the brand of our precedents] that anything that looks/smells like success must somehow be "inauthentic" because we didn't think/dream of it first. this, i think is a very hard truth for us to reconcile with because so many of us have been hurt by the ecclesial machine of american christianity; but, we must repent of this alienation and recognize that much we identify as "authentic" is truly only pride and resentment.
my final notice of our use of authenticity, though, bears the title of this post - 'fauxthenticity' - wherein we participate in the worst kind of fakery by claiming to be authentic with one another but still not really caring about each other. in this scenario, we observe people who are highly familiarized with the concept of "authenticity" and have - ironically - become desensitized to it; so, we use the concept as a frame and a justification for our words and deeds, but have actually stopped engaging the spirit of god and the people around us. we've become fake.
in fact, much of what we [in the emerging/progressional/experimental/lab church] do feels increasingly fake.
we have our own pet publishers
our own conferences
our own blogosphere
and there feels like less and less room for outside influence to penetrate our world
perhaps we've spent so much time defending ourselves against fundamentalists and self-relfecting apologists that we've stopped innovating?
perhaps, in our sincere efforts to be more than just a brand, we've lost the essence of what made us special?
there seems little enough published about interdisciplinary mediums
less about innovations in ministry perspectives/forums/models/rubrics [and, yes, i know model can often be counterfeit measures of spiritual effectiveness, but models are neither wholly good nor wholly bad and criticizing a system/structure/model for being flawed in-and-of-itself ultimately produces the great dual fruits of uselessness and superiority]
to all this i suggest we add to our working vocabulary words like truth and rightness [with all french literary deconstructionist tendencies invoked, nonetheless] and, more importantly, that we add verve, enthusiasm, creative capital, and passion back into our repetoire.
we've become staid academics and rote defenders of an orthopraxy we're no longer reinventing.
sorry for the rant
i'm just being authentic :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
