Halloween: Yes or No?
One person argues that the Puritanical fear of the occult and the general evangelical hatred towards the Roman Catholic Church is what originally created the fear of Halloween. Perhaps, he argues, we have come to believe our own propaganda?
A Theology of the Land
tallskinnykiwi talks about and quotes Christian farmers who are doing what they can to bring justice and equality to what Paul called “the whole created order.”
In later clarifying the second mistake (don’t do announcements at the beginning), Easum says:
…announcements at the beginning of a worship service so deadly- because they violate every media tenet as well slap as our culture in the face. Most younger people today do whatever they can to avoid watching a commercial on TV. Imagine what a media savvy twenty-something feels when subjected to five or ten minutes of commercials up front before they have the chance to decide if they like what’s happening in your worship.
And if you say, “That’s tough. We don’t bow to the culture,” you’re missing the point. The way to be counter-cultural is not by intentionally turning people away with your methodology. The way to be counter-cultural is to make the worship so appealing that the Holy Spirit has time to speak into their lives and transform their hearts into followers of Christ. You can’t do that if you run them off at the beginning of the service.
I don’t know Easum personally. He seems to have reasonably valid credentials for talking about church growth and church marketing, but I wonder if we have lost something in this message of making the Holy Spirit “appealing.”
There is nothing all that “appealing” to me about Jesus. He didn’t hold nice services and invite lots of people to hear him. In fact, he tried very often to turn people away or keep what he did a secret. What do we do with this Jesus in light of modern church marketing?
I’m not sure I have the answers, but I would appreciate any thoughts on the matter.
I was talking to Sarah recently about how to teach ownership to students and children. I have no children of my own, but I do (eventually) want to teach in some capacity. I have my history credential, but there are no jobs this year. The question remains how teach Christ’s message to children and in the same breath teach them about ownership?
The Christmas photo reminds me of many Christmases where my brothers and I would fight over who gets to light the candles at Advent. It also brings back many memories of fights over shared toys and anger when my brothers would destroy “my” legos or when games on the super nintendo would get erased and we would have to start over. Needless to say, I was taught from a very young age the idea of ownership and sharing. But how would Jesus have us live and think of ownership?
It is here that I turn to the book of Luke (9:3-6):
He said to them, ‘Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money—not even an extra tunic. Whatever house you enter, stay there, and leave from there. Wherever they do not welcome you, as you are leaving that town shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.’ They departed and went through the villages, bringing the good news and curing diseases everywhere.
Jesus sends the disciples out with nothing and they are required to depend on others. It is quite a thing to lose your independence in America. I have only seen a few people really lose it in my lifetime and it would seem now they have no choice but to obey him. I don’t think this passage is talking to everyone for all times, but I do think there is a kind of message in the text that reminds us that the “independence” we often talk about in America is not what Jesus had for the apostles. He taught them utter dependence on the communities they were to live in. Perhaps we would be wise to follow in those footsteps.
Perhaps we would be wise to depend and trust one another in a Christ filled community.
Perhaps we would be wise to play together in a way that ownership becomes secondary to friendship.
Perhaps we would be wise to begin the project of really getting to know each other.
There’s money-lenders inside the temple
That circus tiger’s gonna break my heart
Something so wild turned into paper
If you love me, then that’s your fault
There’s money-enders inside the temple
This crystal city’s gonna fall apart
When all their power turns into vapor
If I miss you, well that’s my fault
-Conor Oberst, Lenders in the Temple
After recently reading Mark’s thoughts on Jesus Loves me and Wes’ thoughts on the Withering Fig Tree, I decided I needed to write a theologically laden thought.
The thought begins on many long walks or in silent shadows when I think about the fairness of God. I think of Saul stripped of his kingdom because he wouldn’t follow some very tall orders from Samuel. Can Saul really be blamed that Samuel was late in getting to a meeting? Can Saul really be blamed for the extreme pressure put on the leader of a country to make a decision in the heat of the moment? I read the story which Wes so eloquently spoke on in his post:
“The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, ‘May no one ever eat fruit from you again.’ And his disciples heard him say it… In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!’” Mark 11:12-14 & 20-21
I again come back to the basic question: Why would he expect a fig when it was not the season for figs? Why does he expect the impossible? Why does he utterly destroy it when what he wanted was a miracle?
Why does he expect so much out of season?
How can he?
Apparently Jesus doesn’t expect ordinary.
He expects a commitment of life in and out of season.
Apparently he really does take faith seriously
He expects a serious faith in all seasons of life.
Usually I like to put comics in my links, but today I felt it would be inappropriate. The links in this installment are not going to be fun interesting links. I hope that they disturbe you into action.
1. Human Trafficking: It’s real and we are complicit if we just let it happen on our watch in this global world.
3. Here is an excerpt from Father Stephen’s touching story from a porch in Narazeth:
I noticed that this man was looking at me – staring would be more accurate. I looked down a couple of times, but he never broke his gaze. Our eyes met and I walked over to him. I do not speak Polish – only a little (very little) broken Russian. But I took a chance and greeted him. He smiled. I told him in my poor Russian that I was an Orthodox priest from America.
Tears came to his eyes. The smile remained. I was dressed in my cassock wearing my gold cross (which I blessed at every shrine I visited). This kind-eyed man reached over and lifted my cross to his lips. He kissed it, and I gave him a blessing (in Slavonic).
His polite reply, complete with tears was: “Znamie Bog!” (”God is with us”). Indeed He was with us that day on the porch in Nazareth. The Christchild uniting two believers with few words between us. The pilgrim’s smile and tears spoke volumes. I will never know his story or his name – but I will remember that God is with us!
3. In a time of great economic recession, perhaps you can learn from this comic some fundamental principles of resume writing.
5. Peter Rollins talks about convictions in Christianity:
6. Chad says that putting Christ back in Xmas is about more than mantra, but it is about our practice vs. what we say we practice.
7. I want to speak more about Scot McKnight’s discussion at Jesus Creed on conversion. Some like Chad rightly point out that there is no “magic formula” to conversion. Nick notes that there is NT Wright’s analogy of the difference between alarm clock salvation that happens suddenly and those that wake up smoothly (you might also read his views on apolgetics, I enjoyed them). Ted as well sees the importance of “nurture” in the conversion process. Dan suggests that we need to make room for all types of conversions that Scot talks about. I also want to share this quote from Matt:
Context is a fundamental part of this discussion. Our Western Christian context is dramatically different than our brothers and sisters in, for instance, the Congo. “The gospel is like a multi-faceted diamond, with different aspects that appeal to a different people in different cultures. It has depths we have not fathomed. It defies every attempt to reduce it to a neat formulation.”
Also interesting is the debate that begins as a result of talking about conversion. While John argues that Jesus is not a product and that we must get to know him (not just through a ‘one-time-prayer’), Joey points out that prayer is a way to get to know God. So what is the part of prayer in conversion? Does God listen to prayers of non-Christians who are ‘in process’ of becoming Christian? Nick Mitchell (in good Baptist fashion) argues that we need to have a better definition of conversion in order to have any sort of conversation about it. Here is what he says:
There is a moment when a person passes from death to life, from being in adam to being in Christ. It is NOT a process for a person to be in Christ. Yes, there are events that lead up to that moment and events that follow nut there is a moment nevertheless. If a person confesses with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believes in their heart that God raised him from the dead they will be saved. It is that confession and belief ‘moment’ when a person is saved. Yes a person may read books or they undergo convincing but there comes a decisive time when, whether aware of it or not, they pass from death to life.
I have just finished reading The Call to Discipleship by Karl Barth (you can see my review of the book here). It is a succint read into the thoughts of Barth on the question of what it means to be a disciple of Christ.
Barth begins by saying about the man who said to Jesus he would follow him wherever he went (Luke 9:57-58). Barth says:
He is obviously one who has presumed to do this on his own initiative. And his [Jesus'] answer is the terrible saying about the foxes that have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, ‘but the son of man–whom he is going to follow–hath not where to lay his head.’ He does not realize that it is that he thinks he can choose. He does not know how terrible is the venture in which he commits himself in the execution of this choice.
No one of themselves can or will imagine that this is their way, or take this way. What Jesus wills with his ‘Follow me” can be chosen only in obedience to his call: ‘Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water’ (Matt 14:28). Without being bidden by Christ, he could not do this. It has also been noted that there can be no conditions. The man mentioned [above]… lacked true discipleship, not merely because he offered it to Jesus as a matter of his own choice, but because he also made a condition: “Let me first say farewall to those at my home.”
I have never been a fan of Calvinism (and that is not necessarily what Barth is arguing for here), but I think that the idea of choice goes to show how well off we are. A famous phrase in America is that we want to change the world. As with almost all phrases which have been repeated over and over again in an American mantra, they mean almost nothing. How do these people want to change the world? Perhaps some would say they want to change the world ‘for the better,” but to what better end do they wish to change the world and why do they think they have the answer as to why their world is best? Choice and change are all a result of comsumeristic tendencies that have killed many disciples in America. At this time of Christmas, we need to consider how we might obey without putting conditions on our obedience.
“Time for the random passage of the day,” I say jokingly. I open the bible to a random place.
I open to Corinthians.
“Expel the immoral brother,” I say reading the heading. “That is the verse of the day.”
“Well, are you immoral?” Mark asked.
“How do you define immoral?” I asked back.
“Well, someone who is not moral.”
“Well, then what is a moral person?”
This is the question of questions. There is a major problem trying to define almost anything because people often use the negative or the opposite to define it. This has brought me to a major question in my life. What is a definition and how do we know what anything is? For instance, we ask the question, “What is moral?”
Is it someone who doesn’t do certain actions? If so, then we are defining moral by what you don’t do. If you do define moral by a set of actions that you do, then we define morality situationally. For instance, if one says a moral person helps people, then we have limited morality to helping people. Does this mean that a person who helps animals is not moral? Perhaps it would be better to define moral as someone who helps, but we then have to figure out what it means to help someone. We know that the world “help” has a certain denotation in the western world. We certainly could continue on in this debate trying to define what it means to help someone, but it is very difficult to show this without examples or without criteria that somehow limits the definition of “help.”
In the same way, we have difficulty with words like “God” because we do not want to limit the definition of God by saying “God is [fill in the blank].” We do not wish to do this because we do not wish to limit God. It is true that God is good, but is not also true that God holds wrath? It is true that God is love, but it is not also true that God is capable of anger–even if it is the most righteous kind of anger? We find ourselves again and again at a loss to describe God.
As I write this, I realize my finite abilities in even writing any of these words. Language is a powerful thing.
1. The Clawsons both lead me some good stuff. Mike’s blog has a very funny (and sad) story on how Christian Radio has been on a twenty year loop. It is these types of articles that makes me wonder if Christian entertainment and radio is totally out of touch with the world today. As a future teacher, we are constantly being told in our classrooms that high school changes dramatically every year. Each year, we are told, we need to reassess our goals and objectives based on the students. Should this be something the church is doing as well? Julie lead me to a very good poem that should be read to reflect on advent season by T.S. Eliot. I love his imagery in all his poetry.
2. There is a discussion going on over whether or not Rob Bell speaks out of both sides of his mouth. I, apparently, am his sole defender on the largely reformed blog. This should not be taken for a blanket endorsement of Bell by myself. I think that his teaching is inherently one-sided, but I think that we can all be guilty of this in one way or another if we are not careful. My one piece of advice to all ministers is to be careful with the words you speak to your congregations.
Do you find yourself saying the same things over and over again (see this if you’re not sure)? Does your congregation say that you sound like a broken record? One of the main things that pastors are guilty of is “getting off” on a pet doctrine and building a church around that pet doctrine. Granted, there are some things that probably need to be emphasized more based on the context and the community of your church, but there also needs to be a certain amount of challenge and push to your congregations as well. Sometimes congregations need to hear something different and something that may make them uncomfortable. Sound educational pedagogy says that we need to push our audience into a bit of disequilibrium (i.e., make the laugh, make them angry, sad etc.), but not into so much disequilbrium that they shut down and stop listening. Find that balance between raising emotions and keeping your audience engaged is a fine line that any good pastor must walk.
3. How would you answer Andrew Jone’s million dollar question? I would begin a house school where a group of one hundred students learn within the context of their community. They would shadow professionals in the field, learn job skills in relation to their field, and study what they are interested in. I don’t have all the detail worked out, but it would be a place where community service would be part of the curriculum. We would save money by using no textbooks and having the majority of the research done in public libraries. Students would be in charge of making lunches for the students in low-cost fashion. Jones also talks about five ways that churches can overcome the recession we are in. His views reflect many of theings I have said in the past (here, here, and here). If this isn’t enough, also check out Kathleen’s post on this subject.
5. Adrian talks about why Piper doesn’t own a TV, but that he does own a macbook. How are the internet and the TV the same? How are they different? There is a disscusion about this in relationship to education here. Because the internet is much more interactive (especially in a web 2.0 world), many have argued that there really is no comparison between TV and the internet.
:
