2.10.2005
Ugh - I need a vacation.
Just as the wife and I were getting over the lingering colds we caught a few weeks ago at the jr high winter retreat, she gets nailed with a bad case of bronchitis that could have tipped into pneumonia (thanks to her asthma) and I get a real bad head cold. Since she works with babies, she has had to take the whole week off from work and I ended up staying home sick for a couple of days. And I came to the somewhat obvious conclusion that we need a vacation. We've only taken a few days off since we've been here - almost a year now - and most of those have been spent with family. I think I may be starting to burn out a little bit. Anyone have any cheap but fun & relaxing vacation ideas?
2.04.2005
For the Life of the World
Only a brief post today - I am trying to finish up my lesson for Sunday morning, focusing on Luke 10 & 11. All I can say is that those kids are lucky I only have them for an hour; I'm really getting on a roll and have to very intentionally trim what I want to say. I pray that God softens their hearts and that I am faithfully teaching what he wants them to hear.
Anyways, I was reading some of Fr. Schmemann's "For the Life of the World" yesterday, and his words whispered to my soul, breathing hope into my current struggles.
"...to enter into that joy [of the Lord], so as to be a witness to it in the world, is indeed the very calling of the Church, its essential leitourgia, the sacrament by which it 'becomes what it is.'"
I hunger to enter into that joy, for the fullness of worship! There is a deep emptiness in me that can only be filled by it. I am sick to death of shallow, man-centered worship. Worship that is more concerned with being comfortable and inoffensive, than it is coming into the presence of God with joy, thanksgiving and praise.
"We are already far beyond the categories of common worship and prayer. The purpose of this 'coming together' is not simply to add a religious dimension to the natural community, to make it 'better' - more responsible, more Christian. The purpose is to fulfill the Church, and that means to make present the One in whom all things are at their end, and all things are at their beginning...The early Christians realized that in order to become the temple of the Holy Spirit they must ascend to heaven where Christ has ascended...In church today, we so often find we meet only the same old world, not Christ and His Kingdom. We do not realize that we never get anywhere because we never leave any place behind us."
Anyways, I was reading some of Fr. Schmemann's "For the Life of the World" yesterday, and his words whispered to my soul, breathing hope into my current struggles.
"...to enter into that joy [of the Lord], so as to be a witness to it in the world, is indeed the very calling of the Church, its essential leitourgia, the sacrament by which it 'becomes what it is.'"
I hunger to enter into that joy, for the fullness of worship! There is a deep emptiness in me that can only be filled by it. I am sick to death of shallow, man-centered worship. Worship that is more concerned with being comfortable and inoffensive, than it is coming into the presence of God with joy, thanksgiving and praise.
"We are already far beyond the categories of common worship and prayer. The purpose of this 'coming together' is not simply to add a religious dimension to the natural community, to make it 'better' - more responsible, more Christian. The purpose is to fulfill the Church, and that means to make present the One in whom all things are at their end, and all things are at their beginning...The early Christians realized that in order to become the temple of the Holy Spirit they must ascend to heaven where Christ has ascended...In church today, we so often find we meet only the same old world, not Christ and His Kingdom. We do not realize that we never get anywhere because we never leave any place behind us."
2.02.2005
Consensus II
So I leave things with the glaring statement that there can be no consensus between the paradigms of the Church Fathers and the Reformation. I was blessed with some time on Monday to sit at Border's for a few hours and do some studying-up on the Reformation (obviously not an in-depth exploration, but enough to confirm my thesis, I believe). What I found, though, was quite ironic. Though Luther & Calvin both affirmed the need for the individual believer to ground their personalized faith in the Bible and to search its depths for themselves with no churchly mediator, both men supported hierarchical, centralized churches (if only locally) with ties to the state or government. And both were willing to use the government to enforce (their) orthodoxy. According to Bruce Shelley in Church History in Plain Language, "The Reformers were as eager as the Catholics to suppress nonconformity." (pg 302) In a debate with John Eck in Leipzig, Luther said "Neither the church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture." Luther plainly taught "...that common people have a right to search the Bible for themselves..." and yet was more than willing to allow a church of his choosing to establish those very articles and doctrines. (pg 248) From this, I think we can see that even the Reformers themselves did not fully believe in their own doctrine about the individual's authority and ability to read Scripture, or at least thought the doctrine needed to be tempered by a strong ecclesial presence. Regardless, one of the prime legacies of the Reformation is the insistence on private judgment and being directed by personal conscience. How does this square with Patristic thought?
Quite simply; it doesn't. Reading through even the earliest Fathers (those from the 1st and 2nd centuries), it is evident that being a good follower of Christ was closely linked to being a good follower of the church's leaders. From Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians, we are told "...ye did all things...being obedient to those who had the rule over you, and giving all fitting honour to the presbyters among you." (ch 1) But this is not just a case of submission for the sake of peace or honoring those older in the faith. From this passage, it is clear that Clement sees a special, God-appointed role for the bishop:
"The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefor was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders...with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe." (ch 17)
We can see, then, the clear line of succession starting with God the Father, moving through Jesus to the Apostles and from the Apostles to the bishops they appointed. But this, in and of itself, does not tell us exactly what authority the bishops have. Clearly the Apostles were subject to Christ and the bishops to the Apostles. Drawing this out, we (as "those who should afterwards believe") are to be subject to the bishops (or his representatives). Us to the bishops, the bishops to the Apostles, the Apostles to Christ and Christ to the Father; a very orderly progression. And what of those who would not be subject to the bishops? From Clement again:
"Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that ye should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, ye should be cast out from the hope of His people." (ch 57, emphasis added)
Clement clearly believes that refusing to be in fellowship with and subjection to the bishop (through his presbyters) is to be removed from the "flock of Christ." In his mind, the visible church is, in fact, the Church - the Body of Christ - and she is constituted by her line of succession through the bishop to the Apostles to Christ. Breaking that chain is to break from the body.
(more)
Quite simply; it doesn't. Reading through even the earliest Fathers (those from the 1st and 2nd centuries), it is evident that being a good follower of Christ was closely linked to being a good follower of the church's leaders. From Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians, we are told "...ye did all things...being obedient to those who had the rule over you, and giving all fitting honour to the presbyters among you." (ch 1) But this is not just a case of submission for the sake of peace or honoring those older in the faith. From this passage, it is clear that Clement sees a special, God-appointed role for the bishop:
"The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefor was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders...with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe." (ch 17)
We can see, then, the clear line of succession starting with God the Father, moving through Jesus to the Apostles and from the Apostles to the bishops they appointed. But this, in and of itself, does not tell us exactly what authority the bishops have. Clearly the Apostles were subject to Christ and the bishops to the Apostles. Drawing this out, we (as "those who should afterwards believe") are to be subject to the bishops (or his representatives). Us to the bishops, the bishops to the Apostles, the Apostles to Christ and Christ to the Father; a very orderly progression. And what of those who would not be subject to the bishops? From Clement again:
"Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that ye should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, ye should be cast out from the hope of His people." (ch 57, emphasis added)
Clement clearly believes that refusing to be in fellowship with and subjection to the bishop (through his presbyters) is to be removed from the "flock of Christ." In his mind, the visible church is, in fact, the Church - the Body of Christ - and she is constituted by her line of succession through the bishop to the Apostles to Christ. Breaking that chain is to break from the body.
(more)
1.30.2005
Is consensus truly possible?
This is largely inspired from a couple of posts over at Daniel's Neothelogue. One of his textbooks presents a method of determining Christian orthodoxy which uses the following definition of "Tradition": the consensus beliefs held in common by the early church fathers and the Reformers of the sixteenth century as expressed in common by the ecumenical creeds and Reformation confessions of faith.
On the whole, this is a pretty good definition of how Protestantism understands tradition. It is probably only absent a caveat about it being subject to Scripture and a good definition of "early fathers" (the cut-off date for acceptability could have massive implications for our theology). But the more I think about this, the more I think that this is actually an impossibility. There is no way to reconcile Patristic thought with the ideals of the Reformation. I say this as someone not intimately familiar with either, but I probably know just enough to be dangerous - so if I err in some regard, please correct me. And my full thoughts on this will probably take a few posts to explore, so bear with me.
Now, it may be possible to reconcile Reformation thought (RT) with particular Fathers, or Patristic thought (PT) with a specific Reformer. For instance, I know that Luther did not start out with the intention of splitting from the Roman Catholic Church, only correcting it. It is possible that within the time-frame he was still seeking reform from within the Church, his thinking was well in-line with PT. I have not read much Luther, so I honestly cannot say. And, of course, many of the Calvinists I have come across tend to look back to Augustine as support the antiquity of their theology, but if Augustine actually does agree with Calvinism (a point on which I remain skeptical), I dare say that it is an aberration in PT. If time permits, I will try to get into some direct comparisons between some Patristic authors and Reformation confessions to flesh this point out.
So why is a consensus impossible to achieve between PT and RT? Quite simply, in answering the question of orthodoxy, they are guided by 2 principles that are alien and antithetical to each other. In the Patristic witness, what is the norm and source of orthodoxy? The Church as she lives in faithful adherence to the Apostolic Tradition, which contains the Bible, and the Ecumenical Councils. An individual believer is called to obediently participate in that life, submitting to the Church in all areas of dogma & theology. In the Reformation ideal, what is the norm and source of orthodoxy? The Bible (sola Scriptura), guided by reason and tradition (though what exactly this tradition is may be a matter of some dispute). The individual believer is called to evaluate all that the church and her leaders say in light of the Bible and come to their own decision about whether it accords with Scripture. Thus, private judgment is able to trump everything - as long as it makes sense to the individual, no amount of tradition or the reasoning of others has the authority to declare a doctrine or belief incorrect.
It is this principle that is so foreign to PT. The ideal of private judgment effectively raises the individual above the Church, but it is clear in the Fathers that it is the Church that holds sway. I will develop this further, but this, in a nutshell, is why there can be no consensus between PT and RT.
On the whole, this is a pretty good definition of how Protestantism understands tradition. It is probably only absent a caveat about it being subject to Scripture and a good definition of "early fathers" (the cut-off date for acceptability could have massive implications for our theology). But the more I think about this, the more I think that this is actually an impossibility. There is no way to reconcile Patristic thought with the ideals of the Reformation. I say this as someone not intimately familiar with either, but I probably know just enough to be dangerous - so if I err in some regard, please correct me. And my full thoughts on this will probably take a few posts to explore, so bear with me.
Now, it may be possible to reconcile Reformation thought (RT) with particular Fathers, or Patristic thought (PT) with a specific Reformer. For instance, I know that Luther did not start out with the intention of splitting from the Roman Catholic Church, only correcting it. It is possible that within the time-frame he was still seeking reform from within the Church, his thinking was well in-line with PT. I have not read much Luther, so I honestly cannot say. And, of course, many of the Calvinists I have come across tend to look back to Augustine as support the antiquity of their theology, but if Augustine actually does agree with Calvinism (a point on which I remain skeptical), I dare say that it is an aberration in PT. If time permits, I will try to get into some direct comparisons between some Patristic authors and Reformation confessions to flesh this point out.
So why is a consensus impossible to achieve between PT and RT? Quite simply, in answering the question of orthodoxy, they are guided by 2 principles that are alien and antithetical to each other. In the Patristic witness, what is the norm and source of orthodoxy? The Church as she lives in faithful adherence to the Apostolic Tradition, which contains the Bible, and the Ecumenical Councils. An individual believer is called to obediently participate in that life, submitting to the Church in all areas of dogma & theology. In the Reformation ideal, what is the norm and source of orthodoxy? The Bible (sola Scriptura), guided by reason and tradition (though what exactly this tradition is may be a matter of some dispute). The individual believer is called to evaluate all that the church and her leaders say in light of the Bible and come to their own decision about whether it accords with Scripture. Thus, private judgment is able to trump everything - as long as it makes sense to the individual, no amount of tradition or the reasoning of others has the authority to declare a doctrine or belief incorrect.
It is this principle that is so foreign to PT. The ideal of private judgment effectively raises the individual above the Church, but it is clear in the Fathers that it is the Church that holds sway. I will develop this further, but this, in a nutshell, is why there can be no consensus between PT and RT.
1.27.2005
How do you do it?
I had a good conversation with a regional youth-ministry guru. He's putting on a one-day training seminar on relationship building in ministry and has offered to let me ride up with him to talk about the ministry I lead. It was encouraging - at one point when I was describing the parent problems I've been having, he asked how long I had been here. I said "about 10 months" and he said "sounds about right then," meaning parent problems always crop up when the honeymoon is over. He asked me what my vision is for this youth ministry, which is honestly a little hard for me to articulate because that question almost always entails "what does the program look like?" and I neither know nor particularly care. That's not true - I care a great deal, I just don't know what external stuff is going to produce the internal results that I want. Which are, basically, a thriving, deep faith that is steeped in prayer, oriented towards true worship, well acquainted with the Bible and actively seeking to advance the Kingdom. I don't want to entertain and I certainly don't want the biggest program in town - I just want to take the kids who want to grow and fan their flames. And for those who don't, or are just sitting on the fence, I want to start sending some sparks their way to see if they're combustible.
So how would you do it? (Or how does your church do it?) What do you think would be the priority? How would you structure things? Where would you begin?
So how would you do it? (Or how does your church do it?) What do you think would be the priority? How would you structure things? Where would you begin?
1.26.2005
Something positive
I feel as though I've been doing a lot of complaining lately. Even though there has been some bad crap going at my job, I still shouldn't whine about it so much. So I'm going to try to refrain unless there is something just so mind-numingly horrific that I just have to get off my chest. Which means I need something positive to blog about...but honestly, I'm coming up blank. I just got a couple of books on getting parents involved in youth ministry and have started reading them, but they're nothing earth-shattering so they're not inspiring any posts. I've been greatly enjoying Fr. Schmemman's book, but haven't been able to touch it for over a week, so I'm also a little dry in that regard.
A couple of cool things: I also put together a weekly devotional blog for my youth, which was recently found by an old friend who left a comment. He used to be a volunteer youth leader and intern at my old church before he left for a full time youth-ministry position. I'm hoping he'll be able to offer me some good counsel on my current situation & ministry. I know the first church he was at was a very bad fit and he ended up leaving it after a relatively short time, so he probably has a good idea of what I'm going through.
On a related note, one of the parents of my kids talked to me and told me that she does web-design professionally along with her husband and that she would love to help with the youth blog. That is a real blessing - I'd like to make that page an outreach conduit. In the spring I want to start doing cook-outs at the local skate park. I figure free hamburgers and cokes might be a good way to meet some of those kids, and it might be easier to spark their interest by giving them the web address as I invite them to the youth service I'm hoping to start in March. Just something to catch their attention or make them think.
A couple of cool things: I also put together a weekly devotional blog for my youth, which was recently found by an old friend who left a comment. He used to be a volunteer youth leader and intern at my old church before he left for a full time youth-ministry position. I'm hoping he'll be able to offer me some good counsel on my current situation & ministry. I know the first church he was at was a very bad fit and he ended up leaving it after a relatively short time, so he probably has a good idea of what I'm going through.
On a related note, one of the parents of my kids talked to me and told me that she does web-design professionally along with her husband and that she would love to help with the youth blog. That is a real blessing - I'd like to make that page an outreach conduit. In the spring I want to start doing cook-outs at the local skate park. I figure free hamburgers and cokes might be a good way to meet some of those kids, and it might be easier to spark their interest by giving them the web address as I invite them to the youth service I'm hoping to start in March. Just something to catch their attention or make them think.
1.24.2005
The weekend
This weekend the wife and I took several kids on a junior higher retreat to a camp in Michigan. The retreat was fun - plenty of snow made for good sledding & tobogganing, the boys & girls of our group got a long quite well in their respective parties (there was not much intermingling and after spending 48+ hours with a group of junior high boys, I can certainly understand why the girls might prefer their own company) and my wife got to see some old friends from the church she used to attend some years back. Only a few gripes - the speaker, though obviously a loving and dedicated youth pastor, just wasn't up to snuff. We had at 4 chapel sessions starting Friday night and ending Sunday morning, but there was little continuity between his talks and the kids just weren't engaged by them. What he said was good, it just wasn't well presented for this audience. They had a three person band performing and they were pretty good. However, they played the same set of worships songs with few changes for all 4 sessions. For me, a person not prone to get into contemporary praise choruses, having to sing "Even more undignified than this" that many times in such a short span of time was deeply frustrating.
Which brings me to the long-standing fascination I have with contemporary worship music. And this is not "fascination" in a particularly positive sense. At best it is neutral and more often than not, it borders on...not revulsion actually, but something close. See, a while back I started counting the "me/us:you" ratio; that is, the number of times a particular chorus uses the words "I/me/our(s)/we/us" versus a "you" (or other term, such as a name or honorific title) that refers to God. This weekend most of the songs hovered around a 2:1, which is the average ratio my independent research has uncovered. I think one song managed to get an entire verse out without once using a "you" or "God", but I was admittedly quite tired and trying to keep kids from messing around, so I could be mistaken. Needless to say, I think a 2:1 ratio is troubling and would prefer, at best a 1:1 ratio and probably one even lower on a consistent basis. I'm not sure how we can call singing about us, even an "us" as we relate to God, worship. It seems like it should be much more God-centered and a lot less emotion-driven. Several songs, for instance, had a line about dancing - implying that the congregation of singers should be dancing - but no one was. A small contingent was jumping up and down, but you see the same thing at your average secular concert, so I don't take that for anything significant. Other than that, most of the kids just stood there and sang, with varying degrees of emphasis and emotion I'm sure, lines that talked about being sooooo happy and sooooo excited, etc. The disconnect was profound.
Needless to say, this weekend was also a bit of challenge due to its coming on the heels of all the parental shenanigans of last week. In all honesty, I kept thinking in the back of my head "am I (or my senior pastor) going to get a phone call about this?" Can the kids have a snow ball fight? Can the kids go sledding without my immediate supervision? Can I let them participate in the camp tradition of making a toboggan run shirtless? (I did and much to their delight and the delight of the crowd, which joyfully pelted them with snowballs as they came down the course. Unfortunately, they were topped a few minutes later by a group of boys going down in just their shorts. How quickly our glory fades.) Can I let them dare each other to do stupid but non-dangerous things as part of some game? A few of the boys rode up with my wife and she inadvertently let them play "slaps" - a game similar to bloody knuckles - and one boy's hand swelled up like he had broken a bone or something. I was just praying it would be much better by the time we left. It was both a relief and scare when one of the boys immediately told his mother of the semi-nude toboggan run, which she laughed at and said "oh, they'll remember that forever!", but then also said, "they'll probably all get sick and the church will be sued!" Great. Thanks. Just what I needed to hear. I'm just pretty gun-shy right now and have some fears and doubts about moving forward here. I've had a variety of problems with this church since we came on staff and got to know things from an insider's perspective, but this feels like it could be the beginning of the end.
Which brings me to the long-standing fascination I have with contemporary worship music. And this is not "fascination" in a particularly positive sense. At best it is neutral and more often than not, it borders on...not revulsion actually, but something close. See, a while back I started counting the "me/us:you" ratio; that is, the number of times a particular chorus uses the words "I/me/our(s)/we/us" versus a "you" (or other term, such as a name or honorific title) that refers to God. This weekend most of the songs hovered around a 2:1, which is the average ratio my independent research has uncovered. I think one song managed to get an entire verse out without once using a "you" or "God", but I was admittedly quite tired and trying to keep kids from messing around, so I could be mistaken. Needless to say, I think a 2:1 ratio is troubling and would prefer, at best a 1:1 ratio and probably one even lower on a consistent basis. I'm not sure how we can call singing about us, even an "us" as we relate to God, worship. It seems like it should be much more God-centered and a lot less emotion-driven. Several songs, for instance, had a line about dancing - implying that the congregation of singers should be dancing - but no one was. A small contingent was jumping up and down, but you see the same thing at your average secular concert, so I don't take that for anything significant. Other than that, most of the kids just stood there and sang, with varying degrees of emphasis and emotion I'm sure, lines that talked about being sooooo happy and sooooo excited, etc. The disconnect was profound.
Needless to say, this weekend was also a bit of challenge due to its coming on the heels of all the parental shenanigans of last week. In all honesty, I kept thinking in the back of my head "am I (or my senior pastor) going to get a phone call about this?" Can the kids have a snow ball fight? Can the kids go sledding without my immediate supervision? Can I let them participate in the camp tradition of making a toboggan run shirtless? (I did and much to their delight and the delight of the crowd, which joyfully pelted them with snowballs as they came down the course. Unfortunately, they were topped a few minutes later by a group of boys going down in just their shorts. How quickly our glory fades.) Can I let them dare each other to do stupid but non-dangerous things as part of some game? A few of the boys rode up with my wife and she inadvertently let them play "slaps" - a game similar to bloody knuckles - and one boy's hand swelled up like he had broken a bone or something. I was just praying it would be much better by the time we left. It was both a relief and scare when one of the boys immediately told his mother of the semi-nude toboggan run, which she laughed at and said "oh, they'll remember that forever!", but then also said, "they'll probably all get sick and the church will be sued!" Great. Thanks. Just what I needed to hear. I'm just pretty gun-shy right now and have some fears and doubts about moving forward here. I've had a variety of problems with this church since we came on staff and got to know things from an insider's perspective, but this feels like it could be the beginning of the end.
1.21.2005
Resolution
Mercifully, grace-full-y, the meeting went well. It was not punitive or accusatory - they simply addressed what some parents said while admitting that some things were probably taken out of context and that they were taking it all with a grain of salt. Some of the things were really isignificant - on the first camping trip I planned, the person who said they knew how to get to the campground (30 minutes away) showed up and said they didn't remember how to get there, so I had to run into the church and print off directions; at a 2 day outdoor concert I didn't take a parent's advice to put all of the kids into hotels because that would have prevented about 15 kids from coming, so we camped and got rained on. There were a few things like that. Other things were, however, valid - I guess I have a tendency to try too hard to be relateable to the kids, which some parents didn't like. Everyone in the meeting, though, admitted it is a hard line to walk between mentor/friend when working with high school kids. Too much in one direction will cause problems, and though I really didn't think I was crossing that line, that's the perception and Ijust have to accept that I did.
A good thing to come out of this - a big youth-ministry guru has offered to mentor me. I'm honestly a little leary about it, if only because I'm a pretty independent person, but I'm holding out hope that this will benefit me in this and future ministry positions - wherever they may be. Another good thing - the SP apologized for the way he acted in the meaning. I told him how I felt things went down and he said the main reason he didn't say anything was because he didn't want them to get the idea that this ministry's philosophy is up for public debate. So he apologized for not supporting me and I think his reason for not doing so was pretty good - would have been nice to have been told this immediately after the meeting, but oh well. He also said that he recognized this woman was causing most of this trouble - stirring her problems up with other people and that he told them in no uncertain terms to stop talking about this to other people. A very welcome directive in my book!
So thank you all for your prayers & support. God has definitely used this in a positive way for me personally, and I think for this staff. I think the SP realized that as a staff we are too uninvolved or unaware of what is happening in each other's ministries, so hopefully this will be a spur to greater unity.
A good thing to come out of this - a big youth-ministry guru has offered to mentor me. I'm honestly a little leary about it, if only because I'm a pretty independent person, but I'm holding out hope that this will benefit me in this and future ministry positions - wherever they may be. Another good thing - the SP apologized for the way he acted in the meaning. I told him how I felt things went down and he said the main reason he didn't say anything was because he didn't want them to get the idea that this ministry's philosophy is up for public debate. So he apologized for not supporting me and I think his reason for not doing so was pretty good - would have been nice to have been told this immediately after the meeting, but oh well. He also said that he recognized this woman was causing most of this trouble - stirring her problems up with other people and that he told them in no uncertain terms to stop talking about this to other people. A very welcome directive in my book!
So thank you all for your prayers & support. God has definitely used this in a positive way for me personally, and I think for this staff. I think the SP realized that as a staff we are too uninvolved or unaware of what is happening in each other's ministries, so hopefully this will be a spur to greater unity.
1.20.2005
The other shoe drops...
In approximately 1 hour I will have a follow-up meeting with the senior pastor, executive pastor and our elder (we have only the one!) to discuss the lively meeting we had on Sunday. The SP has also, apparently, contacted some other parents and kids to check up on me.
And I am of many different minds on how to go into this meeting. My wife and I went to Border's last night and I was reading through "The Wisdom of the Desert Fathers" by Thomas Merton, and was struck by their repeated warnings against pride and to control your tongue. Before going there, I was, quite honestly, livid about this whole thing but it seemed that God was speaking to me through those words. This was only reinforced this morning by a conversation with the church planter who had a long talk with the SP yesterday about it all. He recommended that I be contrite and listen to what they have to say with an open heart. I'm willing to do that - I want to do that. But at the same time, the way this whole thing is being handled - not just the Sunday meeting, but the follow-up too - is just wrong. And that bothers me. It bothers me that a set of parents that are admittedly "psycho" (in the SP's own words) can launch this kind of firestorm. It bothers me that I was ambushed at that meeting with the SP's full knowledge & consent. It bothers me that I'm being talked about behind my back. And from what I gathered from what the CP told me about his conversation, it bothers me greatly that a lot of this criticism is based on falsehood and misrepresentation. It bothers me that I have not been afforded the chance to defend myself or answer these accusations, because if I know this staff, today is not going to be about that. It also bothers me that the glowing reports from other parents are apparently not being taken into account. I want to have a godly attitude towards this, to accept the Lord's discipline, but I don't think I can just let all of this slide - it needs to be addressed if only so it doesn't fester inside me. I just hope I don't lose my temper because this has gotten me more angry than I've been in years.
Lord have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
And I am of many different minds on how to go into this meeting. My wife and I went to Border's last night and I was reading through "The Wisdom of the Desert Fathers" by Thomas Merton, and was struck by their repeated warnings against pride and to control your tongue. Before going there, I was, quite honestly, livid about this whole thing but it seemed that God was speaking to me through those words. This was only reinforced this morning by a conversation with the church planter who had a long talk with the SP yesterday about it all. He recommended that I be contrite and listen to what they have to say with an open heart. I'm willing to do that - I want to do that. But at the same time, the way this whole thing is being handled - not just the Sunday meeting, but the follow-up too - is just wrong. And that bothers me. It bothers me that a set of parents that are admittedly "psycho" (in the SP's own words) can launch this kind of firestorm. It bothers me that I was ambushed at that meeting with the SP's full knowledge & consent. It bothers me that I'm being talked about behind my back. And from what I gathered from what the CP told me about his conversation, it bothers me greatly that a lot of this criticism is based on falsehood and misrepresentation. It bothers me that I have not been afforded the chance to defend myself or answer these accusations, because if I know this staff, today is not going to be about that. It also bothers me that the glowing reports from other parents are apparently not being taken into account. I want to have a godly attitude towards this, to accept the Lord's discipline, but I don't think I can just let all of this slide - it needs to be addressed if only so it doesn't fester inside me. I just hope I don't lose my temper because this has gotten me more angry than I've been in years.
Lord have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
1.18.2005
Theological blinders
In our recent staff evaluations, I and the church planter both pressed for the staff to spend some time in the Word as a staff. This hadn't been happening ever, so the senior pastor started it last week with 2 Timothy. Today we covered verses 3-7 and in the course of the study, he asked what we thought the gift in verse 6 actually was. A couple of people thought it was Paul passing on his authority and/or calling - possibly something akin to an ordination. I pointed out 1 Timothy 4:14, which reads (in the NASB): "Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery." Now, I'm no trained exegete, but "the spiritual gift within you" sounds like a lot more than a mere ordination or "passing the baton" as the SP suggested. I raised this question and was told, quite quickly, that this could not, in fact, be a spiritual gift since Timothy already had the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it could only be an appellation or transfer of authority and nothing more.
Riiiiiiiight. Way to edit the text to avoid uncomfortable implications.
Riiiiiiiight. Way to edit the text to avoid uncomfortable implications.
I am your leader...
...until the excrement hits the fan, and then I will abandon you just as fast as I can. Please excuse the following rant - I need to get it off my chest before I implode with frustration:
Had a meeting with 2 parents and the senior pastor Sunday afternoon. The parents had some complaints and concerns they wanted to air, and even though the mother had already talked to me, they thought it needed to be discussed with the SP. The initial impetus for this was that their son got his feelings hurt while we (me and a few students) were joking around. It was something I said that bothered him, so I took him out for a coke and apologized. I certainly didn't mean it to be hurtful and it was offered as an innocent joke, but was obviously not taken that way. This is not the first time I've had to apologize to the kid and will likely not be the last. So things are fine between me and the kid, but they still want the joint meeting.
The first hour or so was nothing but them offering up complaint after complaint. A couple were valid, but by far, the rest were the result of my style not fitting with their idea of how things should be run. For instance, a couple of kids have said that I don't care if they swear. In context, this is true. If I'm talking to a kid one-on-one about not sleeping with his girlfriend or helping them get through a tough time with school/family/sports/whatever, I really don't care if they drop a swear word every now and then. I'm focused on the bigger issue at hand. If, however, a kid swears in the youth meeting, I do care and I have corrected kids who have done so. The rest were similar things taken out of context and misrepresented as if they were constant issues. They even went so far as to suggest I should not have youth activities in my home because "an old pastor friend of ours said there needs to be a boundary there."
Being ripped on for over an hour is bad enough in itself, but what really made the meeting special was the fact that my SP did not say a single word on my behalf. He offered no defense, no statement that maybe these stylistic differences aren't substantive or that he thought I was actually doing a good job even though there might be some things I need to work on. Heck, I know there are things I need to work on - this is my first full-time ministry position; mistakes are inevitable. No, instead he said to me in front of these parents "I thought everything was fine in our evaluations [done at the end of the year], but I guess I've been too loose with you and will have to call other parents." Not only am I not defended, I'm undermined. Their differences in style & preference have just trumped mine no matter what reason I have for doing things the way I do. I mean, in all honesty, there isn't a whole lot I don't do with a specific reason in mind. The format, the scheduling, my style - all are meant to address particular areas of concern or respond to problems, but this doesn't matter.
Of course, it doesn't end there. In the midst of all of this, the SP actually distances himself from me and the alleged problems in the youth ministry by saying "I'm not involved in the youth program. We pay someone to do that." I am the hired gun for youth and if I've gone off the reservation that is in no way a reflection on his leadership. This in spite of the fact he knew I had no professional youth ministry experience when he hired, that the program was in bad disarray when I came on and that he has done absolutely nothing to mentor me in any way. In the 10 months I've been here, he has taken me out to lunch once to see how things were going. Other than that, nada. He hasn't attended a single activity, sat in on a single session, reviewed any of my lessons or talked about scheduling with me. The only time any of this came up was in the annual review, and he openly admitted he had a very limited basis for evaluating my performance this last year.
So I'm ripped on, undermined and denied. Undoubtedly there will be a follow-up meeting with the SP to talk about this stuff. I am just struck by the irony: this guy spends more time talking about leadership than anyone I've ever met - its almost fetishistic - and yet when it comes down to it, displays possibly the worst leadership I have ever seen.
Had a meeting with 2 parents and the senior pastor Sunday afternoon. The parents had some complaints and concerns they wanted to air, and even though the mother had already talked to me, they thought it needed to be discussed with the SP. The initial impetus for this was that their son got his feelings hurt while we (me and a few students) were joking around. It was something I said that bothered him, so I took him out for a coke and apologized. I certainly didn't mean it to be hurtful and it was offered as an innocent joke, but was obviously not taken that way. This is not the first time I've had to apologize to the kid and will likely not be the last. So things are fine between me and the kid, but they still want the joint meeting.
The first hour or so was nothing but them offering up complaint after complaint. A couple were valid, but by far, the rest were the result of my style not fitting with their idea of how things should be run. For instance, a couple of kids have said that I don't care if they swear. In context, this is true. If I'm talking to a kid one-on-one about not sleeping with his girlfriend or helping them get through a tough time with school/family/sports/whatever, I really don't care if they drop a swear word every now and then. I'm focused on the bigger issue at hand. If, however, a kid swears in the youth meeting, I do care and I have corrected kids who have done so. The rest were similar things taken out of context and misrepresented as if they were constant issues. They even went so far as to suggest I should not have youth activities in my home because "an old pastor friend of ours said there needs to be a boundary there."
Being ripped on for over an hour is bad enough in itself, but what really made the meeting special was the fact that my SP did not say a single word on my behalf. He offered no defense, no statement that maybe these stylistic differences aren't substantive or that he thought I was actually doing a good job even though there might be some things I need to work on. Heck, I know there are things I need to work on - this is my first full-time ministry position; mistakes are inevitable. No, instead he said to me in front of these parents "I thought everything was fine in our evaluations [done at the end of the year], but I guess I've been too loose with you and will have to call other parents." Not only am I not defended, I'm undermined. Their differences in style & preference have just trumped mine no matter what reason I have for doing things the way I do. I mean, in all honesty, there isn't a whole lot I don't do with a specific reason in mind. The format, the scheduling, my style - all are meant to address particular areas of concern or respond to problems, but this doesn't matter.
Of course, it doesn't end there. In the midst of all of this, the SP actually distances himself from me and the alleged problems in the youth ministry by saying "I'm not involved in the youth program. We pay someone to do that." I am the hired gun for youth and if I've gone off the reservation that is in no way a reflection on his leadership. This in spite of the fact he knew I had no professional youth ministry experience when he hired, that the program was in bad disarray when I came on and that he has done absolutely nothing to mentor me in any way. In the 10 months I've been here, he has taken me out to lunch once to see how things were going. Other than that, nada. He hasn't attended a single activity, sat in on a single session, reviewed any of my lessons or talked about scheduling with me. The only time any of this came up was in the annual review, and he openly admitted he had a very limited basis for evaluating my performance this last year.
So I'm ripped on, undermined and denied. Undoubtedly there will be a follow-up meeting with the SP to talk about this stuff. I am just struck by the irony: this guy spends more time talking about leadership than anyone I've ever met - its almost fetishistic - and yet when it comes down to it, displays possibly the worst leadership I have ever seen.
1.11.2005
Bosnia
My church participates in a program wherein we have access to a catalog of donated items that were overstocked by retailers. We just got in our latest order - I requested a couple of books; one on "moral realism, God's commands & human autonomy" and one on the war in Kosovo. As I have mentioned in the past, I spent some time in Bosnia with the Army Reserves, from Aug '00 to April '01, so the Balkans hold a certain - I suppose "fixation" is a good enough word - for me. I kind of have the urge to write something, but don't really have anything specific thats bugging me, so I'm just going to talk about my time in Bosnia.
A few background details: I was in counter-intelligence and my unit was jointly deployed with an intel batallion from Georgia. I was on a "force protection team." Our mission was pretty straightforward - identify, recruit & develop low-level sources with a primary emphasis on threats to US forces, and a descending list of other intel priorities that focused on the actual state of things in-country. My team consisted of 4 soldiers - me, my chief, and 2 "security" people. In other areas, security was provided by MP's or infantryman - you know, actual combat-arms types - but ours were Arabic linguists. I'm not sure how that came to be, but its what we had. We also had 2 private-contractor linguists. One was an American born Serb and the other was a Bosnian born American. Goran came from Chicago and was in his mid-20's, and Zoran was actually a Croat-Bosniak (Bosnian muslim) who had lived in Sarajevo during the siege. Between the 2 of them, we had excellent English and Serbo-Croat language skills, which was a huge help. Other teams were not so fortunate. We were stationed in a city called Doboj (pronounced 'dough - boy') in northern Bosnia, with the NORDPOL battle group - a mix of Norwegian, Danish, Polish, and other nations. My teams area was entirely within the Republika Srpska - the Serb Republic - and though there were some Bosniak and Croat returnees, the large majority of the people I dealt with were Serbian.
Being in the Serb area definitely changed the nature of my experience versus those of the other teams. The boundary between the Republika Srpska (RS) and the Bosniak-Croat Federation (BCF) region ran through the southern part of Doboj and once you went through a short tunnel, the transition was obvious. The Serbs were painted as the villains in the international media, and this negative portrayal resulted into far less international aid for the Bosnian-Serb areas. On a short ride from Doboj to Srpski Brod (formerly Bosanski Brod) of approximately 75km, we would see hundreds of destroyed homes. Just to the east of Srpski Brod was an area that had been part of the shifting front lines during the war and it was a wasteland. Mostly just dirt, a few trees, and mines everywhere. In most parts of Bosnia you didn't want to walk off the road or sidewalk, but here, you didn't even dare think about it. But when you went south and crossed that transition, most of the homes were rebuilt or repaired, roads were maintained and, perhaps most importantly, fields had been cleared of mines. Every 2 weeks we had to travel to Eagle Base in Tuzla to do maintenance on our vehicles, and we travelled through the BCF, so I was regularly presented with the huge difference in the lives of peoples in these different areas. In the 3 major towns in my team's area, homes that were not destroyed were riddled with pockmarks from bullet strikes. One day, in a town called Derventa, I was looking at a few buildings and realized that there was no pattern to these shots. This was not suppressive fire aimed at a specific window or doorway - there was no discernible concentration or pattern. It was just wild, sprayed at random across all the buildings in sight. I tried to picture this as it happened; a group of young men, probably about my own age, standing in the street with rifles and machine guns just shooting wildly. I couldn't get my mind around the sheer hateful madness of that act. It isn't human. The streets and sidewalks were also dotted with mortar strike-marks. There was even a school that had large mortar strikes on an exterior wall. On a daily basis, I was surrounded by evidence of the conflict, the very real, physical residue of hatred and death.
But it was more than damaged buildings - it was palpable in the air. It was like chewing on tin-foil all the time. It was a place bereft of hope and you could see it in the eyes of the people. Many had lost the understanding of what it meant to live, and those who hadn't, had left. They had fled into other parts of Europe, looking for a new life. I think the best example of this happened in Srpski Brod in early spring. There was a small carnival or fair that was passing through town and they had set up a little bumper-car rink. I'm sure part of it was just that these kids didn't know what bumper-cars are, but when we happened upon the scene, they were driving in joyless, unsmiling circles. We quickly remedied that - you should have seen the look of sheer schock, and yes, fear, when we hopped into those bumper-cars and actually started bumping them and each other. There were a few moments of confusion - were we mad? Were we crazy? Were we trying to hurt them? Understandably, a group of armed, foreign soldiers ramming you in a little electric car is a bit disconcerting. But they soon realized what those bumpers are for! We pooled our cash together and bought dozens of tokens to pass out to the kids, and all of a sudden there were hordes of kids eagerly waiting in line - waiting for their chance for a thrill, for the exhiliration of ramming each other in fits of giggles and playful shouts. After an hour or so we had to leave, but we left a scene of riotous fun, handing out all the remaining tokens before we departed.
When we were back in town 2 days later, they were again driving in circles.
A few background details: I was in counter-intelligence and my unit was jointly deployed with an intel batallion from Georgia. I was on a "force protection team." Our mission was pretty straightforward - identify, recruit & develop low-level sources with a primary emphasis on threats to US forces, and a descending list of other intel priorities that focused on the actual state of things in-country. My team consisted of 4 soldiers - me, my chief, and 2 "security" people. In other areas, security was provided by MP's or infantryman - you know, actual combat-arms types - but ours were Arabic linguists. I'm not sure how that came to be, but its what we had. We also had 2 private-contractor linguists. One was an American born Serb and the other was a Bosnian born American. Goran came from Chicago and was in his mid-20's, and Zoran was actually a Croat-Bosniak (Bosnian muslim) who had lived in Sarajevo during the siege. Between the 2 of them, we had excellent English and Serbo-Croat language skills, which was a huge help. Other teams were not so fortunate. We were stationed in a city called Doboj (pronounced 'dough - boy') in northern Bosnia, with the NORDPOL battle group - a mix of Norwegian, Danish, Polish, and other nations. My teams area was entirely within the Republika Srpska - the Serb Republic - and though there were some Bosniak and Croat returnees, the large majority of the people I dealt with were Serbian.
Being in the Serb area definitely changed the nature of my experience versus those of the other teams. The boundary between the Republika Srpska (RS) and the Bosniak-Croat Federation (BCF) region ran through the southern part of Doboj and once you went through a short tunnel, the transition was obvious. The Serbs were painted as the villains in the international media, and this negative portrayal resulted into far less international aid for the Bosnian-Serb areas. On a short ride from Doboj to Srpski Brod (formerly Bosanski Brod) of approximately 75km, we would see hundreds of destroyed homes. Just to the east of Srpski Brod was an area that had been part of the shifting front lines during the war and it was a wasteland. Mostly just dirt, a few trees, and mines everywhere. In most parts of Bosnia you didn't want to walk off the road or sidewalk, but here, you didn't even dare think about it. But when you went south and crossed that transition, most of the homes were rebuilt or repaired, roads were maintained and, perhaps most importantly, fields had been cleared of mines. Every 2 weeks we had to travel to Eagle Base in Tuzla to do maintenance on our vehicles, and we travelled through the BCF, so I was regularly presented with the huge difference in the lives of peoples in these different areas. In the 3 major towns in my team's area, homes that were not destroyed were riddled with pockmarks from bullet strikes. One day, in a town called Derventa, I was looking at a few buildings and realized that there was no pattern to these shots. This was not suppressive fire aimed at a specific window or doorway - there was no discernible concentration or pattern. It was just wild, sprayed at random across all the buildings in sight. I tried to picture this as it happened; a group of young men, probably about my own age, standing in the street with rifles and machine guns just shooting wildly. I couldn't get my mind around the sheer hateful madness of that act. It isn't human. The streets and sidewalks were also dotted with mortar strike-marks. There was even a school that had large mortar strikes on an exterior wall. On a daily basis, I was surrounded by evidence of the conflict, the very real, physical residue of hatred and death.
But it was more than damaged buildings - it was palpable in the air. It was like chewing on tin-foil all the time. It was a place bereft of hope and you could see it in the eyes of the people. Many had lost the understanding of what it meant to live, and those who hadn't, had left. They had fled into other parts of Europe, looking for a new life. I think the best example of this happened in Srpski Brod in early spring. There was a small carnival or fair that was passing through town and they had set up a little bumper-car rink. I'm sure part of it was just that these kids didn't know what bumper-cars are, but when we happened upon the scene, they were driving in joyless, unsmiling circles. We quickly remedied that - you should have seen the look of sheer schock, and yes, fear, when we hopped into those bumper-cars and actually started bumping them and each other. There were a few moments of confusion - were we mad? Were we crazy? Were we trying to hurt them? Understandably, a group of armed, foreign soldiers ramming you in a little electric car is a bit disconcerting. But they soon realized what those bumpers are for! We pooled our cash together and bought dozens of tokens to pass out to the kids, and all of a sudden there were hordes of kids eagerly waiting in line - waiting for their chance for a thrill, for the exhiliration of ramming each other in fits of giggles and playful shouts. After an hour or so we had to leave, but we left a scene of riotous fun, handing out all the remaining tokens before we departed.
When we were back in town 2 days later, they were again driving in circles.
Got a dog
The wife and I got a puppy on Sunday afternoon. We were bored after an interminable leadership committee meeting and, on a lark, decided to call a couple of adds in the paper. We found an add for German short-haired pointers, relatively cheap, and since my main concern is wanting a decent sized watchdog, we gave them a call. We were charmed by relativley large and laid back male, who is settling into his new home nicely. He is still a little freaked out by the snow in the back-yard, but housebreaking is coming along nicely and he hardly whines at night. I was raised with dogs, so to me, a home isn't really a home until a canine is in it.
1.05.2005
Heretical Ice Storms
We are looking at a pretty serious ice storm in the very near future - freezing rain right now which should give us about an inch of ice and then 4 inches of snow later this afternoon/evening - so I will be leaving shortly to avoid the worst of the conditions and huddle snuggly in my home with my beautiful wife (I will also be praying that an ice covered branch from the tree in our back yard does not fall on our power line!). This has left met a bit short on time, so I won't be able to offer any thoughts or look for other relevant links.
Anyways, in line with recent thoughts & readings, I found a couple of posts on Tony Jones' blog. The first is about an email Tony received with some questions about the orthodoxy of someone who did not believe in the Trinity. There are a variety of responses that range considerably on thoughts in this regard, including several by Doug defending his position somewhat. It is noteworthy that he doesn't fully defend his thoughts or offer a taste of what he thinks would be a good alternative to this historic understanding of the Godhead. The second is a followup that introduces questions about the emerging movement's "open methodology" for doing theology. They are informative, if alarming, discussions.
UPDATE: I found Doug Pagitt's blog.
Anyways, in line with recent thoughts & readings, I found a couple of posts on Tony Jones' blog. The first is about an email Tony received with some questions about the orthodoxy of someone who did not believe in the Trinity. There are a variety of responses that range considerably on thoughts in this regard, including several by Doug defending his position somewhat. It is noteworthy that he doesn't fully defend his thoughts or offer a taste of what he thinks would be a good alternative to this historic understanding of the Godhead. The second is a followup that introduces questions about the emerging movement's "open methodology" for doing theology. They are informative, if alarming, discussions.
UPDATE: I found Doug Pagitt's blog.
Could He have...
I'm going to work through Luke with my kids this semester and since we covered most of the birth narratives during Advent, we're starting in chapter 3. I'm looking at the temptations Jesus endured in chapter 4, and am wondering - could He have actually sinned? Could He have succumbed to the temptation?
Thoughts and on-line resources are greatly appreciated.
Thoughts and on-line resources are greatly appreciated.
1.04.2005
The Pastor's Arenas
In recent blog discussions and private readings, I have been confronted with a great deal of theological questioning and debate. In thinking about this, I've found it helpful to (artificially) divide the pastor's duties & obligations into 3 arenas - the doctrinal, the pastoral and the humanitarian.
The doctrinal arena is quite straightforward - a pastor is expected to know, practice and be able to effectively communicate "the mystery of the faith" (1 Tim 3:9) to those he shepherds. There is, I think, too strong a tendency in American Protestantism to put the emphasis on intellectual knowledge of the pastor without enough focus on personal praxis & devotion, but that is not entirely relevant to this discussion. This is arena is somewhat objective - does the pastor know and support the doctrinal positions of the church-body of which he is a member?
The pastoral arena includes all areas of pastoral care and duties. This would certainly include the communication of God's love & grace through visitation, preaching, teaching, counseling and personal availability to congregation members. Process evangelism would probably fall into this arena, as well as "spiritual friendships" with seekers. This arena is more subjective since it deals with interpersonal relationships and has a larger emphasis on communicating the love of God and shepherding believers.
The humanitarian arena focuses on the extra-church community - its emphasis is on evangelism and service. There is obviously some overlap with the pastoral arena. A person in the community may come to the congregation prior to coming to faith. Thus, the humanitarian arena may extend both into the church and into the external community.
So what does this have to do with theological debates? For those open to them, the primacy of an arena has much to do with the nature and content of their theological revisions. For conservatives of whatever Christian tradition, the doctrinal arena has clearly come first and not without ample biblical & patristic support for this position. In the discussion of pastoral qualifications in 1 Timothy 3, one quickly notices that personal conduct & piety is the most oft repeated criterion. However, doctrinal fidelity receives strong emphasis in chapter 4, especially with the warning in verse 16 "Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you." It is Timothy's teaching of sound doctrine, as well as his personal walk, that will bring salvation to himself and to others. This is not to undermine the pastoral and humanitarian requirements that are obviously required by the Gospel, but it clearly shows that we have to, as pastors, first understand the Gospel and only then can we effectively communicate it to others.
But for the postmodern Christian, doctrine is up for grabs. As I posted earlier, there is a strong tendency to discount even the possibility that our theology has any correspondence to the reality of God. With that in mind, it is no wonder that the doctrinal arena loses its place of prominence and is instead replaced with the pastoral. And here, as Phil points out, the emergent church seems to be largely driven by a desire to be pragmatic, though I think he rightly posits they have not fully realized all that this pragmatism entails. In favoring the pastoral side, the question becomes "how can we best serve/reach the people?", which is obviously not a bad question. However, when that question is divorced from the priority of sound doctrine, it becomes a market-driven ideal. To illustrate; someone who is scared to death of going to the dentist will deny that dental care is the best possible treatment for their infected teeth. If we have moved away from a clear understanding of the need for proper dental & medical care, then we may be fooled into thinking another option - perhaps a different mouthwash or an electric toothbrush - might be the best treatment. Similarly, if we have moved away from a strong doctrinal understanding of the Gospel, we may be tempted to fall into the trap of "effectiveness." (And as I touched on earlier, this is not confined to liberal or emergent churches - I fear my evangelical seeker church has gotten mired in the same trap, though possibly for different reasons.) The reality is that the best thing we can offer to someone caught up in sin is the redemption offered through the grace of Christ. While this grace is free in that we can never earn it, it is not without its demands. As Paul clearly told Timothy, sound doctrine is almost sacramental; it is a vehicle for grace. If we have compromised or revised our doctrine, what does that do to grace?
The doctrinal arena is quite straightforward - a pastor is expected to know, practice and be able to effectively communicate "the mystery of the faith" (1 Tim 3:9) to those he shepherds. There is, I think, too strong a tendency in American Protestantism to put the emphasis on intellectual knowledge of the pastor without enough focus on personal praxis & devotion, but that is not entirely relevant to this discussion. This is arena is somewhat objective - does the pastor know and support the doctrinal positions of the church-body of which he is a member?
The pastoral arena includes all areas of pastoral care and duties. This would certainly include the communication of God's love & grace through visitation, preaching, teaching, counseling and personal availability to congregation members. Process evangelism would probably fall into this arena, as well as "spiritual friendships" with seekers. This arena is more subjective since it deals with interpersonal relationships and has a larger emphasis on communicating the love of God and shepherding believers.
The humanitarian arena focuses on the extra-church community - its emphasis is on evangelism and service. There is obviously some overlap with the pastoral arena. A person in the community may come to the congregation prior to coming to faith. Thus, the humanitarian arena may extend both into the church and into the external community.
So what does this have to do with theological debates? For those open to them, the primacy of an arena has much to do with the nature and content of their theological revisions. For conservatives of whatever Christian tradition, the doctrinal arena has clearly come first and not without ample biblical & patristic support for this position. In the discussion of pastoral qualifications in 1 Timothy 3, one quickly notices that personal conduct & piety is the most oft repeated criterion. However, doctrinal fidelity receives strong emphasis in chapter 4, especially with the warning in verse 16 "Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you." It is Timothy's teaching of sound doctrine, as well as his personal walk, that will bring salvation to himself and to others. This is not to undermine the pastoral and humanitarian requirements that are obviously required by the Gospel, but it clearly shows that we have to, as pastors, first understand the Gospel and only then can we effectively communicate it to others.
But for the postmodern Christian, doctrine is up for grabs. As I posted earlier, there is a strong tendency to discount even the possibility that our theology has any correspondence to the reality of God. With that in mind, it is no wonder that the doctrinal arena loses its place of prominence and is instead replaced with the pastoral. And here, as Phil points out, the emergent church seems to be largely driven by a desire to be pragmatic, though I think he rightly posits they have not fully realized all that this pragmatism entails. In favoring the pastoral side, the question becomes "how can we best serve/reach the people?", which is obviously not a bad question. However, when that question is divorced from the priority of sound doctrine, it becomes a market-driven ideal. To illustrate; someone who is scared to death of going to the dentist will deny that dental care is the best possible treatment for their infected teeth. If we have moved away from a clear understanding of the need for proper dental & medical care, then we may be fooled into thinking another option - perhaps a different mouthwash or an electric toothbrush - might be the best treatment. Similarly, if we have moved away from a strong doctrinal understanding of the Gospel, we may be tempted to fall into the trap of "effectiveness." (And as I touched on earlier, this is not confined to liberal or emergent churches - I fear my evangelical seeker church has gotten mired in the same trap, though possibly for different reasons.) The reality is that the best thing we can offer to someone caught up in sin is the redemption offered through the grace of Christ. While this grace is free in that we can never earn it, it is not without its demands. As Paul clearly told Timothy, sound doctrine is almost sacramental; it is a vehicle for grace. If we have compromised or revised our doctrine, what does that do to grace?
12.31.2004
Books
I appreciate the suggestions from the previous post, and have put several of them on my "wish list". I had specifically asked for Barnes & Noble gift cards for Christmas because when I was overseas with the Army, BN was the only company that offered APO shipping and the stuff got there in only a few days. But in searching around looking for books, I was disturbed to see that Amazon was consistently cheaper - in one case about $4.00 cheaper. Which means I could have gotten more books! For my birthday, I may have to go with Amazon. I normally go in for brand loyalty on this kind of thing, but cheaper books is a hard thing to ignore.
Book #1 - Reclaiming the Center edited by Erickson, Helseth and Taylor. I saw a review-in-progress over on Phil Steiger's blog and thought it sounded like a good read, and definitely on par with my post on the emergent movement's fear of certainty. I've only worked through some of the intro so far, but it looks challenging and informative. I'm sure there will be a few posts inspired by this one.
Book #2 - For the Life of the World by Fr. Alexander Schmemann. Thanks to those "people who bought this book also bought..." links, I was reminded of Fr. Schmemann, of whose writings I have heard numerous praises, but have yet to read myself. This book was originally written in 1963, and in reading the preface and 1st chapter last night, I was struck by how seemingly prescient this book is. Since Fr. Schmemann was tackling the rising head of secularism I suppose I should not find it all surprising, but what I've read so far could have been written today.
Here is a brief quote that got me thinking last night. Fr S is speaking about the tendency in our culture to "spiritualize" religion or to make it entirely about activisim and action to help people.
"Whether we 'spiritualize' our life or 'secularize' our religion, whether we invite men to a spiritual banquet or simply join them at the secular one, the real life of the world, for which we are told God gave his only-begotten Son, remains hopelessly beyond our religious grasp."
In thinking about my context at a seeker-sensitive church, I see that in large part we attempt to do both. We are trying very hard to introduce people to the spiritual life, but without presenting the demands (often uncomfortable and frequently arduous) of discipleship. However, we are also trying to offer people practical advice on how to get along better with their spouse or deal with their anger. We have no material things to offer and instead offer the "materials" of therapy, the pscychological and social tools to help make everything ok. It is far easier for me to see the validity and benefit of the latter, while the former I find very disheartening. In trying to do one or the other, much less both at once, what are we really offering people? I am afraid that Fr. Schmemann just might be right - the real life offered to us in Christ disappears when we try to shape it to our whim or try to make it a little more comfortable.
Book #1 - Reclaiming the Center edited by Erickson, Helseth and Taylor. I saw a review-in-progress over on Phil Steiger's blog and thought it sounded like a good read, and definitely on par with my post on the emergent movement's fear of certainty. I've only worked through some of the intro so far, but it looks challenging and informative. I'm sure there will be a few posts inspired by this one.
Book #2 - For the Life of the World by Fr. Alexander Schmemann. Thanks to those "people who bought this book also bought..." links, I was reminded of Fr. Schmemann, of whose writings I have heard numerous praises, but have yet to read myself. This book was originally written in 1963, and in reading the preface and 1st chapter last night, I was struck by how seemingly prescient this book is. Since Fr. Schmemann was tackling the rising head of secularism I suppose I should not find it all surprising, but what I've read so far could have been written today.
Here is a brief quote that got me thinking last night. Fr S is speaking about the tendency in our culture to "spiritualize" religion or to make it entirely about activisim and action to help people.
"Whether we 'spiritualize' our life or 'secularize' our religion, whether we invite men to a spiritual banquet or simply join them at the secular one, the real life of the world, for which we are told God gave his only-begotten Son, remains hopelessly beyond our religious grasp."
In thinking about my context at a seeker-sensitive church, I see that in large part we attempt to do both. We are trying very hard to introduce people to the spiritual life, but without presenting the demands (often uncomfortable and frequently arduous) of discipleship. However, we are also trying to offer people practical advice on how to get along better with their spouse or deal with their anger. We have no material things to offer and instead offer the "materials" of therapy, the pscychological and social tools to help make everything ok. It is far easier for me to see the validity and benefit of the latter, while the former I find very disheartening. In trying to do one or the other, much less both at once, what are we really offering people? I am afraid that Fr. Schmemann just might be right - the real life offered to us in Christ disappears when we try to shape it to our whim or try to make it a little more comfortable.
12.22.2004
Book suggestions
Thanks to generous friends & family, I have received (and will probably receive a few more on Christmas morn) gift cards for Barnes & Noble. Please leave a comment and let me know if there has been any book or books that have had significant impact on your faith. Or, you can just leave a suggestion for a book that was a fun and/or interesting read. Fiction is fine - I normally read sci-fi, but I'm trying to branch out - so suggest away!!
12.21.2004
The Fear of Certainty
I am blessed with a job that allows me plenty of time to poke around the internet, which is both a blessing and a horrible temptation. At various times over the last few months, I have seen several postings on pomo/emergent blogs about theology and truth. I've left comments on some of these discussions and have gotten a relatively uniform response. I'll post some quotes, and then give my thoughts.
From Pomomusings in a post about theology and experience, wherein I left a comment asserting there may be an objectively true theology that we should strive to discover and adhere to it, I got this response:
"Theology is simply God-talk....I hate to break this to you bro, but there is no one, absolute, universal theology. It is impossible...There is no one way to think of God. There is no one theology."
From Harbinger, in a post describing "Vulnerable Generosity." Steve basically holds that VG is talking to others with the constant admission "I believe this, but I might be wrong" and it is really the best way for us to interact with the Other. I contended that at some point, not everything we believe should be "on the chopping block" merely for the sake of discussion. The author would have none of it, stating over a few posts:
"nathan, yes, everything has to be on the chopping block, or we are guilty of fundamentalism, dogmatism, and fideism in refusing to consider seriously the possibility that we are mistaken...I am familiar with the most valiant attempts in the history of philosophy to defend certainty, and I am also familiar with the arguments that in my mind decisively refute defenses of certitude."
The most recently, on Radical Congruency, Justin pens a piece comparing the Bible & theology to open-source computer programming. Its an interesting idea, but one that has its difficulties, as Justin realizes:
"I think many people confuse open-source with Wiki, the latter referring to online document collections that can be edited by anyone. Scripture is not subject to casual revision, though it is from time to time revised to reflect the best understandings of leading scholars and experts."
I'm not sure what revisions he is referencing above, but in the comments, I pointed out that there is some danger in opening our theology to be changed by anyone in our community - we don't know if they are being led by the Spirit or if they have a particular axe to grind, nor should we see our theology as mere God-talk. I pointed out that, ideally, our theology actually corresponds to the reality of God, and at some point, we have to put up a boundary that separates us as Christians from, say, Muslims. Another commenter replies in a lengthy post:
"I do not assume that any person has a firm enough grasp of the reality of God to adequately express Him to anybody. Nor do I think that any person could have such a firm grasp on the reality and truth and nature of God."
All of these were good discussions with insightful posts and points, but I am alarmed at the uniformity with which the pomo/emergent crowd thinks it is impossible that we can know the truth about God or, at the very least, are unwilling to say "I believe this is true." I know full well that I cannot *prove* that my beliefs are correct - I cannot prove the Incarnation or the Resurrection, I cannot prove the Trinity or the inspiration of the Bible - but I can say that I *believe* they are true, that they correspond to the reality of God. From there, I have a basis for living out my faith and participating in the communal life of the church.
What happens to a church or group of believers who are unwilling, or too scared, to make that statement of faith? What happens when we are unwilling to put a stake in the ground and say "we believe this is true"? This is a complete rejection of the historic witness of the church, in both its Traditional (Roman Catholic and Orthodox) and Protestant iterations. For the last 2,000 years, Christians have rooted their faith in specific events and specific beliefs about them - what about that makes this generation so uncomfortable? What drives this fear of certainty?
From Pomomusings in a post about theology and experience, wherein I left a comment asserting there may be an objectively true theology that we should strive to discover and adhere to it, I got this response:
"Theology is simply God-talk....I hate to break this to you bro, but there is no one, absolute, universal theology. It is impossible...There is no one way to think of God. There is no one theology."
From Harbinger, in a post describing "Vulnerable Generosity." Steve basically holds that VG is talking to others with the constant admission "I believe this, but I might be wrong" and it is really the best way for us to interact with the Other. I contended that at some point, not everything we believe should be "on the chopping block" merely for the sake of discussion. The author would have none of it, stating over a few posts:
"nathan, yes, everything has to be on the chopping block, or we are guilty of fundamentalism, dogmatism, and fideism in refusing to consider seriously the possibility that we are mistaken...I am familiar with the most valiant attempts in the history of philosophy to defend certainty, and I am also familiar with the arguments that in my mind decisively refute defenses of certitude."
The most recently, on Radical Congruency, Justin pens a piece comparing the Bible & theology to open-source computer programming. Its an interesting idea, but one that has its difficulties, as Justin realizes:
"I think many people confuse open-source with Wiki, the latter referring to online document collections that can be edited by anyone. Scripture is not subject to casual revision, though it is from time to time revised to reflect the best understandings of leading scholars and experts."
I'm not sure what revisions he is referencing above, but in the comments, I pointed out that there is some danger in opening our theology to be changed by anyone in our community - we don't know if they are being led by the Spirit or if they have a particular axe to grind, nor should we see our theology as mere God-talk. I pointed out that, ideally, our theology actually corresponds to the reality of God, and at some point, we have to put up a boundary that separates us as Christians from, say, Muslims. Another commenter replies in a lengthy post:
"I do not assume that any person has a firm enough grasp of the reality of God to adequately express Him to anybody. Nor do I think that any person could have such a firm grasp on the reality and truth and nature of God."
All of these were good discussions with insightful posts and points, but I am alarmed at the uniformity with which the pomo/emergent crowd thinks it is impossible that we can know the truth about God or, at the very least, are unwilling to say "I believe this is true." I know full well that I cannot *prove* that my beliefs are correct - I cannot prove the Incarnation or the Resurrection, I cannot prove the Trinity or the inspiration of the Bible - but I can say that I *believe* they are true, that they correspond to the reality of God. From there, I have a basis for living out my faith and participating in the communal life of the church.
What happens to a church or group of believers who are unwilling, or too scared, to make that statement of faith? What happens when we are unwilling to put a stake in the ground and say "we believe this is true"? This is a complete rejection of the historic witness of the church, in both its Traditional (Roman Catholic and Orthodox) and Protestant iterations. For the last 2,000 years, Christians have rooted their faith in specific events and specific beliefs about them - what about that makes this generation so uncomfortable? What drives this fear of certainty?
12.17.2004
H.R. 235
In my inbox this morning was a mass email from Crosswalk.com with the subject line "Pastor Jailed for Sermon!" With such a suitably alarming subject, I opened it instead of deleting it as I normally do. Turns out a pastor, by the name of Ake Green, has been sentenced to one month in jail for alleged "hate speech against homosexuals" in quoting Romans 1:24-27. This, of course, happened in Sweden which made the story kind of anti-climactic for me. The email goes on to request that I, good updstanding Christian citizen that I am, sign a petition in support of H.R. 235 - the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, because "THIS ATROCITY IS NOW IN AMERICA!"
Call me cynical, but I tend to be quite dubious about political actions sponsored by evangelical groups. It is almost invariably something that gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies, but in the interest of fairness, I decided to do a little research. Here, gentle reader, is a brief synopsis of the back story on this piece of legislation as it appears on the HR 235 website.
A long time ago (1954) in a land far, far away (Texas), an evil man (then Senator Lyndon Johnson), introduced legislation stripping churches of their constitutional rights to speak on any issue the pastor so chose. Today, pastors are limited in their free speech rights and are afraid to speak out on the moral issues of our times for fear of losing their tax exempt status.
On the other side of the aisle, the story is, naturally, reversed. From Alternet.org (the second item to pop up on a yahoo search after the HR235 site), the restrictions placed on clergy are necessary to keep churches from becoming political machines. As the law stands now, clergy are not prohibited from speaking out on moral issues, only from endorsing specific candidates, ie, Republicans. Only one church has ever had its tax exempt status revoked, and that was a church that took out a full page ad bashing President Clinton's stance on abortion during the 1992 presidential election. The article also points out that the American Jewish Congress, the United Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist, Presbyterian and Episcopal churches oppose this legislation and posits fears that churches will be back-doors for soft money to unethically enter politics.
At this point in my research, I am almost ready to sign the petition and spend my considerable political capital in support of this bill. That ECUSA opposes is reason enough, but when a liberal organ like Alternet makes noises about back-doors for soft money in politics, I can only laugh at the hypocrisy - hellooooooooooo, moveon.org and the million other liberal 527's anyone? But then again, Bev LaHaye supports the bill so I'm back at square one.
Searches for HR 235 return only interested parties, so I don't trust that they are entirely accurate. If you do the search, you may find some legislation on the State of Pennsylvania's site - its on eggs, which have never been tax exempt as far as I know and, of course, have a history of rampant political corruption. I found the bill on the House of Representatives site, and the relevant section reads:
An organization described in section 508(c)(1)(A) (relating to churches) shall not fail to be treated as organized and operated exclusively for a religious purpose, or to have participated in, or intervened in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, for purposes of subsection (c)(3), or section 170(c)(2) (relating to charitable contributions), because of the content, preparation, or presentation of any homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made during religious services or gatherings.'. (emphasis added)
I admit I'm a bit hazy this morning, but how can a church be organized exclusively for religious purposes endorse or oppose a candidate and yet still be considered not to have participated in an election? I realize this is for "tax purposes" but it still seems pretty contradictory to me. I agree that churches will and should have political views, including support for specific candidates, but its ludicrous to pretend making that endorsement public is not participating in an election. So now, based on the apparent contradiction inherent in the legislation, I'm leaning towards "no," though I haven't made up my mind yet.
So what do you think? Should I sign the petition?
Call me cynical, but I tend to be quite dubious about political actions sponsored by evangelical groups. It is almost invariably something that gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies, but in the interest of fairness, I decided to do a little research. Here, gentle reader, is a brief synopsis of the back story on this piece of legislation as it appears on the HR 235 website.
A long time ago (1954) in a land far, far away (Texas), an evil man (then Senator Lyndon Johnson), introduced legislation stripping churches of their constitutional rights to speak on any issue the pastor so chose. Today, pastors are limited in their free speech rights and are afraid to speak out on the moral issues of our times for fear of losing their tax exempt status.
On the other side of the aisle, the story is, naturally, reversed. From Alternet.org (the second item to pop up on a yahoo search after the HR235 site), the restrictions placed on clergy are necessary to keep churches from becoming political machines. As the law stands now, clergy are not prohibited from speaking out on moral issues, only from endorsing specific candidates, ie, Republicans. Only one church has ever had its tax exempt status revoked, and that was a church that took out a full page ad bashing President Clinton's stance on abortion during the 1992 presidential election. The article also points out that the American Jewish Congress, the United Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist, Presbyterian and Episcopal churches oppose this legislation and posits fears that churches will be back-doors for soft money to unethically enter politics.
At this point in my research, I am almost ready to sign the petition and spend my considerable political capital in support of this bill. That ECUSA opposes is reason enough, but when a liberal organ like Alternet makes noises about back-doors for soft money in politics, I can only laugh at the hypocrisy - hellooooooooooo, moveon.org and the million other liberal 527's anyone? But then again, Bev LaHaye supports the bill so I'm back at square one.
Searches for HR 235 return only interested parties, so I don't trust that they are entirely accurate. If you do the search, you may find some legislation on the State of Pennsylvania's site - its on eggs, which have never been tax exempt as far as I know and, of course, have a history of rampant political corruption. I found the bill on the House of Representatives site, and the relevant section reads:
An organization described in section 508(c)(1)(A) (relating to churches) shall not fail to be treated as organized and operated exclusively for a religious purpose, or to have participated in, or intervened in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, for purposes of subsection (c)(3), or section 170(c)(2) (relating to charitable contributions), because of the content, preparation, or presentation of any homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made during religious services or gatherings.'. (emphasis added)
I admit I'm a bit hazy this morning, but how can a church be organized exclusively for religious purposes endorse or oppose a candidate and yet still be considered not to have participated in an election? I realize this is for "tax purposes" but it still seems pretty contradictory to me. I agree that churches will and should have political views, including support for specific candidates, but its ludicrous to pretend making that endorsement public is not participating in an election. So now, based on the apparent contradiction inherent in the legislation, I'm leaning towards "no," though I haven't made up my mind yet.
So what do you think? Should I sign the petition?
12.14.2004
On a lighter note
My mom called yesterday to let me know she got me this icon for Christmas. She always wants us to have "something to open" on Christmas morning, but this is being shipped directly to me without any wrapping paper and that doesn't sit right with her on some deep, visceral level. :) I'm not sure my brother and I really get it, but I know I've always enjoyed her love for that kind of thing.
Thanks mom!
The lure of the effective
A few days ago I was poking around online at an Orthodox music store and found some samples, in various languages, of Orthodox hymns. I listened to several of them and found myself on the verge of tears, remembering our experience at St. George's in Arizona and traversing the depth and beauty of Orthodox worship. On a discussion board some months ago, a lay person described Orthodox worship as a feast, and listening to those hymns, I could not help but agree with him. I have been fasting for months and those online hymns were the rich aromas of my mom's kitchen on Thanksgiving day. How sparse our worship and theology are! What paucity pervades our devotion and praxis. Until I heard those hymns, I was only vaguely aware of the hunger pangs, but now, they have been brought to the fore and I can see that the meager gruel served here is not enough to sustain me.
I know there is goodness & godliness here, and that the senior leadership is driven by a deep desire to reach the lost with the Gospel. But in our desire to be "effective" in reaching the unchurched, are we sacrificing something? I cannot help but feel that we are, especially with what I talked about in my last post. Why can't we trust the Holy Spirit to lead us into the right things without relying on outside materials? Why are we so fixed on this model, even when it is clear that it will function only for a season and not endure beyond that? It feels like we are putting God into a very carefully tended and thoroughly locked cage based on "market data." The temptation to be relevant, to be effective, is a lure that is hard to resist, but if it comes at a cost, resist it we must.
I know there is goodness & godliness here, and that the senior leadership is driven by a deep desire to reach the lost with the Gospel. But in our desire to be "effective" in reaching the unchurched, are we sacrificing something? I cannot help but feel that we are, especially with what I talked about in my last post. Why can't we trust the Holy Spirit to lead us into the right things without relying on outside materials? Why are we so fixed on this model, even when it is clear that it will function only for a season and not endure beyond that? It feels like we are putting God into a very carefully tended and thoroughly locked cage based on "market data." The temptation to be relevant, to be effective, is a lure that is hard to resist, but if it comes at a cost, resist it we must.
12.09.2004
90%
What does the description "90%" say about something? If a food is 90% fat free, its still 10% fat. If a surgery is successful 90% of the time, 10% of the patients still die on the table. But those clearly have negative connotations, so what is something good? 90% growth is almost double. 90% is still an 'A', though just barely. 90% is a huge majority.
From a different perspective, if you plagiarize 10% of a paper or research project, its still 90% yours. But does that 10% constitute cheating? If you copy 10% of someone else's book, is that a copyright infringement? 90% of is still untouched. If 10% of your book is uncited pieces from other resources, have you lied to your audience? Though I'm no legal expert, I think it would be a yes to all.
So what would you make of it, then, to hear your church was culling 90% of its creative materials - sermon series & titles, worship ideas and even the sermons themselves - from other churches? What do you say to that? Because that is the startling news I heard yesterday while at lunch with our church planter. We were discussing the plant and some various issues at our church and he said approximately 90% of our materials are copied, primarily from Andy Stanley and his church. I found our latest sermon series, and several series we've done since I got here, on the Northpoint webstore. The thing is, we didn't even change the title of the series! We changed up the sermon titles themselves, and it appears we've mostly only borrowed from them and not copied them verbatim, but we've even used their graphics.
I knew we did some of that - its just a reality that churches face today. Its a tough job to come up with good, creative ideas every week and if someone put together something good, you borrow it. It is what it is. But I had no idea we did it to such an extent. And while I didn't have the rosiest picture of this place and its leadership before, I was coming to accept my place here and was able to see how God was using me with these kids. But this scares me - how healthy can this organization be if it has to do this on that scale? What might be eating away at the heart of this place? I just don't know what to think.
From a different perspective, if you plagiarize 10% of a paper or research project, its still 90% yours. But does that 10% constitute cheating? If you copy 10% of someone else's book, is that a copyright infringement? 90% of is still untouched. If 10% of your book is uncited pieces from other resources, have you lied to your audience? Though I'm no legal expert, I think it would be a yes to all.
So what would you make of it, then, to hear your church was culling 90% of its creative materials - sermon series & titles, worship ideas and even the sermons themselves - from other churches? What do you say to that? Because that is the startling news I heard yesterday while at lunch with our church planter. We were discussing the plant and some various issues at our church and he said approximately 90% of our materials are copied, primarily from Andy Stanley and his church. I found our latest sermon series, and several series we've done since I got here, on the Northpoint webstore. The thing is, we didn't even change the title of the series! We changed up the sermon titles themselves, and it appears we've mostly only borrowed from them and not copied them verbatim, but we've even used their graphics.
I knew we did some of that - its just a reality that churches face today. Its a tough job to come up with good, creative ideas every week and if someone put together something good, you borrow it. It is what it is. But I had no idea we did it to such an extent. And while I didn't have the rosiest picture of this place and its leadership before, I was coming to accept my place here and was able to see how God was using me with these kids. But this scares me - how healthy can this organization be if it has to do this on that scale? What might be eating away at the heart of this place? I just don't know what to think.
12.07.2004
The Results Are In
The first Advent experiment was Sunday, and much to my relief and delight, it went extremely well. The junior high group did better with it than the high schoolers, but this is not at all unusual. The kids were, at first, a bit reticent to actually have to stand up and read something, but when I turned out the lights and lit some small candles to light the pages, there attitudes turned around immediately. They all became very quiet (even the kid with ADHD) and most seemed to relish the experience. In their world, they are surrounded by noise, movement and constant streams of information and sensory data - I think the effect of blocking all of that out, if only for a few minutes, had a profound effect on them, and on me. I was admittedly nervous, but the quasi-liturgy I had put together was simple and the kids followed it easily. The only problem was that it was far too short. I had thought it would take around 30 minutes, but it took only a little over 10. But the kids responded so well to it that I think I can safely extend things this week, and maybe even again the next. I put together a little impromptu homily, but this week I'll be more purposeful in my planning for that. The kids were so receptive, so open after the scripture readings that there is no way I can pass up an opportunity to speak to them at that point. Your prayers for this week are deeply sought and appreciated.
On a more mundane note, we finally got our floors finished and were able to actually move furniture into our downstairs yesterday. We've had a long hard slog with these floors, but we put the final coat of polyurethane on Friday night, and though it isn't perfect (much to my frustration!), the flaws are really very minor and it ended up looking quite good, if I do say so myself. So now we can live in more than one room. The other projects we have left are all relatively minor compared to that - some more painting, some paint removal, etc. We're very excited to be done with the floors!
And after only 8 years, I turned in the final paper for my final undergrad class yesterday. Due to paperwork issues, and living 2,000 miles from my school, I won't officially graduate until next May, but that does not in any way diminish my excitement and gratitude at having finally gotten this thing finished.
On a more mundane note, we finally got our floors finished and were able to actually move furniture into our downstairs yesterday. We've had a long hard slog with these floors, but we put the final coat of polyurethane on Friday night, and though it isn't perfect (much to my frustration!), the flaws are really very minor and it ended up looking quite good, if I do say so myself. So now we can live in more than one room. The other projects we have left are all relatively minor compared to that - some more painting, some paint removal, etc. We're very excited to be done with the floors!
And after only 8 years, I turned in the final paper for my final undergrad class yesterday. Due to paperwork issues, and living 2,000 miles from my school, I won't officially graduate until next May, but that does not in any way diminish my excitement and gratitude at having finally gotten this thing finished.
12.02.2004
Evangalitarianism
One thing I've noticed that is lacking in Protestant Christianity, especially evangelicalism, is a thoroughgoing vocational ecclesiology. I mean that there is little willingness to consider any spiritual path outside the mainstream, which is very egalitarian. Everyone can do every job or take on any role, and while there is an understanding of "calling", ie, "I've been called to do ....", that understanding does not extend beyond a very short list of possibilities. That's bad enough, but even within "normal" callings, there is still a social prohibition against specific practices. Take this article from Youthspecialties.com. This guy is describing practices, which historically, are perfectly normal and were widely accepted within the church. I think there is probably some degree of danger in undertaking these exercises without a more experienced guide - one of the key issues in monasticism, from what I understand. But more to the point, he will always be regarded as weird and possibly even mildly disturbed by the evangelical church.
Here are the general categories of exclusions, as I see them...
Exclusion #1 - Monasticism: (leaving aside for a moment that Protestantism has no monastic movement), but in a more general sense. The only people who can legitimately remain unmarried are gay people - and in many churches they are expected to be "cured" and get on with a wife and family already. There is effectively no room for a person to remain single for their entire life and marriage is viewed as the sole ideal for our lives. Perhaps if your spouse dies, you may remain unmarried after that, but that's still a little fishy to some.
Exclusion #2 - Mysticism: Contemplative prayer, fasting, Christian meditation, basically anything that results in an "altered state" no matter how holy. I think we've married ourselves to modernism so thoroughly that we've learned to distrust anything that cannot be rationally explained, which necessarily includes many spiritual things.
Exclusion #3 - Anything that smells like popery: No incense, no candles (except at Christmas), no liturgy, no memorized prayers, no prayer ropes, no sacramental understanding of anything and heaven help us should we actually show respect to Mary or any other saint!
No, numbers 2 and 3 are understandable to me in that I can see how our intense dance with modernism has made us too heady at the expense of being hearty and how the anti-Catholic swing started at the Reformation would lead to the rejection of Catholic trappings. I guess the latter would apply to #1 to some degree, but I guess I don't see why else we would have abandoned monasticism or at least rejected the possibility that some might be called to a life of singular devotion. If anyone has any thoughts, I'd love to hear them.
Here are the general categories of exclusions, as I see them...
Exclusion #1 - Monasticism: (leaving aside for a moment that Protestantism has no monastic movement), but in a more general sense. The only people who can legitimately remain unmarried are gay people - and in many churches they are expected to be "cured" and get on with a wife and family already. There is effectively no room for a person to remain single for their entire life and marriage is viewed as the sole ideal for our lives. Perhaps if your spouse dies, you may remain unmarried after that, but that's still a little fishy to some.
Exclusion #2 - Mysticism: Contemplative prayer, fasting, Christian meditation, basically anything that results in an "altered state" no matter how holy. I think we've married ourselves to modernism so thoroughly that we've learned to distrust anything that cannot be rationally explained, which necessarily includes many spiritual things.
Exclusion #3 - Anything that smells like popery: No incense, no candles (except at Christmas), no liturgy, no memorized prayers, no prayer ropes, no sacramental understanding of anything and heaven help us should we actually show respect to Mary or any other saint!
No, numbers 2 and 3 are understandable to me in that I can see how our intense dance with modernism has made us too heady at the expense of being hearty and how the anti-Catholic swing started at the Reformation would lead to the rejection of Catholic trappings. I guess the latter would apply to #1 to some degree, but I guess I don't see why else we would have abandoned monasticism or at least rejected the possibility that some might be called to a life of singular devotion. If anyone has any thoughts, I'd love to hear them.
11.29.2004
Take a pass
We were at a wedding in Omaha over the weekend, and while it was a beautiful ceremony, the reception ended up being extremely long, so we weren't able to make it back Saturday night. The Advent Experiment has been delayed to next weeek and I look forward to reporting on the results.
Today I'm in the office writing up my text summary for my final undergrad class, and I feel I must offer this public service announcement. If you ever get the chance to read A New Religious America by Diana Eck, pass it right up. If you receive it as a gift, request the receipt. If you have to read it for a class, DROP. THE. CLASS.
And now, back to summarizing.
Today I'm in the office writing up my text summary for my final undergrad class, and I feel I must offer this public service announcement. If you ever get the chance to read A New Religious America by Diana Eck, pass it right up. If you receive it as a gift, request the receipt. If you have to read it for a class, DROP. THE. CLASS.
And now, back to summarizing.
11.24.2004
The Advent Experiment
I know Thanksgiving weekend isn't even over, but I'm doing something different with the youth for the Advent season. First, we're actually going to do Advent. We're not going to spend the month of December doing nothing in particular until the week before Christmas, when all of a sudden we remember that the whole Jesus-birthday thing is just around the corner. Starting this weekend, we're going to spend every Sunday doing the readings, saying the prayers, lighting the candles and generally avoiding even the semblance of what we've been doing. Second, I'm treating this as kind of an experiment - an anti-fun experiment, if you will. I've been feeling more and more strongly lately that I need to cut the "fun stuff" out of the program and focus on spiritual disciplines, teaching and developing a true community with the youth. Our power was cut this morning in the office, so I went to Border's for to kill an hour until it came back on. I picked up this book "The Younger Evangelicals" by Webber, and read through the chapter on the changing dynamics of youth ministry. It basically talked about all the things I've been thinking about, all the changes I think need to be made - which I took as a confirmation that I'm taking this in the right direction.
So I need your prayers. I need to see some sign from the kids and from God that this is the right direction to take this program. I'm not sure what that sign will be and I know there are some kids who will absolutely hate it, but the status quo isn't good enough anymore. I also need your prayers about how the leadership at my church will react to it. I have a youth devotional blog for the kids and had a link to a guided prayer site run by a group of *gasp* Jesuits! The senior pastor was checking out the blog, clicked on the link and didn't like the fact that there is a link on the bottom of the page that says "pray with the Pope." There is a strong anti-Catholic vibe that kind of permeates our denomination, and even though the kind of stuff I would like to do harkens back to the true historic practice of early Christians (and is more Orthodox than anything), I'm sure the distinction will be lost on some. Needless to say, some feathers might get fairly ruffled, so please pray for peace and for strength & wisdom for me to deal with the situation.
And with that, have a happy Thanksgiving!
So I need your prayers. I need to see some sign from the kids and from God that this is the right direction to take this program. I'm not sure what that sign will be and I know there are some kids who will absolutely hate it, but the status quo isn't good enough anymore. I also need your prayers about how the leadership at my church will react to it. I have a youth devotional blog for the kids and had a link to a guided prayer site run by a group of *gasp* Jesuits! The senior pastor was checking out the blog, clicked on the link and didn't like the fact that there is a link on the bottom of the page that says "pray with the Pope." There is a strong anti-Catholic vibe that kind of permeates our denomination, and even though the kind of stuff I would like to do harkens back to the true historic practice of early Christians (and is more Orthodox than anything), I'm sure the distinction will be lost on some. Needless to say, some feathers might get fairly ruffled, so please pray for peace and for strength & wisdom for me to deal with the situation.
And with that, have a happy Thanksgiving!
11.16.2004
The Argument From Harm II
Back in my original post about a debate over on Pontifications regarding homosexuality, the poster "1,000 times" actually found my little blog and left some comments on my reflections. Since this is a very important issue for Christians today, I though it best to reply to those comments on the main page. 1,000 times posted a section from this article referencing Romans 1:26, which I have not had time to fully review yet. The article is quoted below in italics, and 1,000's comments in plain text. (I would encourage any readers to go back to the original posts to read the comments in their entirety, since I will only be replying to specific sections here.)
Well, according to this article, in re Romans I:
"Well, all I’d like to say at this point is that we have several commentaries on these words dating from the centuries between the writing of this text and the preaching of St John Chrysostom at the end of the fourth century. None of them read the passage as referring to lesbianism. Both St Augustine and Clement of Alexandria interpreted it straightforwardly as meaning women having anal intercourse with members of the other sex."
In and of itself, this does not mean that the verse only refers to deviant heterosexual activity. Clearly "that which is unnatural" or "that which is against nature" leaves open the distinct possibility that lesbianism is included in this verse, regardless of whether specific author saw it or not. Given the fact that the following verse clearly refers to male homosexual activity and that Paul uses the formulation "abandoned the natural function", which parallels "exchanged the natural function" in verse 26, we have to be open to this verse referring to female homosexual activity and not just "unnatural" heterosexual intercourse.
"It has been perfectly normal for long stretches of time to read this passage in the Catholic Church without seeing St Paul as saying anything to do with lesbianism. This means that no Catholic is under any obligation to read this passage as having something to do with lesbianism."
I'm not Catholic, but even I can see this is a non-starter. If the Pope says this verse refers to lesbianism, then a Catholic is indeed obligated to read this verse in that fashion. He/she may choose to disobey the Pope on this matter, but in so doing, they have separated themselves from the Roman Catholic understanding of this verse.
"Furthermore, it is a perfectly respectable position for a Catholic to take that there is no reference to lesbianism in Holy Scripture, given that the only candidate for a reference is one whose ‘obvious meaning’ was taken, for several hundred years, to be something quite else.So if there have been a variety of interpretations of this passage, even among the most respected Bible scholars (and now saints!), doesn't that say that this verse doesn't necessarily condemn sexual behavior between women?"
Yes, it may be possible that St Paul was not referring to lesbianism here. I think it unlikely, but it is possible. However, that does not mean that Scripture is silent on the issue. The New Testament clearly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman (1 Cor 7:2, 1 Tim 3:2) and teaches that sexual love can only be expressed within its confines. Marriage is strictly defined and is not a category of relationships, thus, any sexual expression outside of marriage is wrong. Since, by definition, 2 men and 2 women cannot be married, sexual activity between them can only be construed as sinful. Let me illustrate in a different sphere. To my knowledge, Scripture is silent on the issue of oral sex, and yet, this silence is not taken to mean that oral sex between a spouse and a non-spouse is anything but adultery. Even if there is no verse that explicitly references lesbianism, their is still a system in place from which to reason on these topics.
"And if that's true, then nowhere in the Bible is sexual behavior between women condemned. So why do women have to obey a non-existant command, one that basically eviscerates their entire lives? Nobody else is required to be celibate for life, except gay people."
Are you honestly arguing that the Bible affirms female homosexual relationships, but condemns male homosexuality? This is another problem with your argument - why would God be inconsistent in this manner? If male gay sex is wrong, why would female gay sex be right? What is the ontological difference between them?
"We think that it's not "homosexuality" that is condemned by the Bible, but the exploitative homosexual relationships...The Timothy and Corinthians verses use a word that was never translated as 'homosexuality' until 1946...Nobody knows the actual meaning of the word, because it doesn't exist before the author's use of it in these passages. An obscure word whose exact meaning is unknown is a very bad basis for condemnation of anything, wouldn't you agree?"
I agree that this word should be translated "homosexual" since the idea (life-long sexual/romantic attraction to members of the same sex) and the term, were not developed until the 19th century. There cannot be a direct translation like that. However, the meaning is not as obscure as you think. Paul uses the formulation "arsenokoites", which is actually a combination of words from the Septuagint version of Leviticus 18:22. "Arseno" refers to mankind (if I remember corectly) and "koites" means laying together, hence the word may be better translated as "engagers in homosexual acts" rather than just "homosexual." Given that Paul uses language directly from Leviticus, I think we can safely assume there is some continuity of teaching on this matter and thus cannot simply reject the Levitical Law on this specific topic based on Christians not adhering to other parts. Additionally, I think the meaning of the word is relatively clear when seen in this context, and so we can safely make moral judgments based upon it.
"I agree about the teaching on marriage, though: the Bible gives instructions based on heterosexual unions. But these can't be used to say anything about homosexual unions, can they?"
I'm not sure why you would make that assumption. As I pointed out above, marriage is not a category of relationships, but is itself a strictly defined relationship. There may be many different types of friendships, business contracts, etc, that all fall under those general categories, but marriage is not such a general category. It is singularly defined, just as father, son, brother, uncle, etc, each has a singular definition. So yes, instructions about heterosexual unions say much about homosexual ones; they preclude them.
"Anyway, polygamy was certainly permitted all throughout the Old Testament, and some of the Bible's greatest heros from that period had numerous wives. Adultery had a differnt meaning, also. I'm trying to point out that the institution of 'marriage' has indeed been quite fluid over the centuries."
You are correct. But can you show me one instance where the Bible mentions any marriage between people of the same sex? I don't think you can. Even in cases of polygamy, the women were married to the man and not to each other. I think it would be a stretch, especially in light of NT teaching, to assume that the instituation of marriage is so fluid as to include homosexual unions.
"And my main point here is to wonder why God would punish homosexuality so severely, when the condemnations are few and far between, the basis for condemnation unclear and weak in my opinion, and almost everybody agrees at this point that homoesexual orientation is unchosen. It just doesn't make any sense - and the information above about Romans confirms that, IMO."
What punishment are you referring to? Is it the temporal "punishment" of singleness & celibacy, or the eternal punishment talked about by Paul?
"The issue is that human beings have a deep desire for partnership, and that desire expresses itself in marriage. 95% of Americans marry at some point in their lives; I think that demonstrates that it's a basic sort of instinct. I know hetersexual couples who don't plan to have children, yet still got married. You just can't deny this basic urge to people for their entire lives; imagine this for yourself, if you can."
I agree that people have a deep desire for partnership - it is a part of being human. I have never denied the humanity of homosexuals in this regard and would oppose anyone who did. However, I think we are talking about 2 separate issues that, in my mind, can't necessarily be combined. There is the legal issue of whether or not the state should recognize gay marriage and the spiritual issue, which actually breaks down into the individual and the corporate. How should the individual homosexual live his life based on biblical teaching, conscience, prayer, etc? And should the chuch recognize or bless homosexual unions?
Legally, there is nothing preventing homosexuals from finding a partner, committing themselves to each other and spending the rest of their lives together. Yes, there are some additional legal hoops to jump through regarding wills, visitation rights, etc, but those are all surmountable. No one is denying any gay person the right to find a life-partner and fulfill that profound desire for partnership & love. Things are indeed different on the spiritual front, but I think we should decide how to proceed first - do we focuse on the legal or the spiritual? I would prefer the spiritual, but am willing to tackle both, so I leave it up to you to decide where we go from here.
Well, according to this article, in re Romans I:
"Well, all I’d like to say at this point is that we have several commentaries on these words dating from the centuries between the writing of this text and the preaching of St John Chrysostom at the end of the fourth century. None of them read the passage as referring to lesbianism. Both St Augustine and Clement of Alexandria interpreted it straightforwardly as meaning women having anal intercourse with members of the other sex."
In and of itself, this does not mean that the verse only refers to deviant heterosexual activity. Clearly "that which is unnatural" or "that which is against nature" leaves open the distinct possibility that lesbianism is included in this verse, regardless of whether specific author saw it or not. Given the fact that the following verse clearly refers to male homosexual activity and that Paul uses the formulation "abandoned the natural function", which parallels "exchanged the natural function" in verse 26, we have to be open to this verse referring to female homosexual activity and not just "unnatural" heterosexual intercourse.
"It has been perfectly normal for long stretches of time to read this passage in the Catholic Church without seeing St Paul as saying anything to do with lesbianism. This means that no Catholic is under any obligation to read this passage as having something to do with lesbianism."
I'm not Catholic, but even I can see this is a non-starter. If the Pope says this verse refers to lesbianism, then a Catholic is indeed obligated to read this verse in that fashion. He/she may choose to disobey the Pope on this matter, but in so doing, they have separated themselves from the Roman Catholic understanding of this verse.
"Furthermore, it is a perfectly respectable position for a Catholic to take that there is no reference to lesbianism in Holy Scripture, given that the only candidate for a reference is one whose ‘obvious meaning’ was taken, for several hundred years, to be something quite else.So if there have been a variety of interpretations of this passage, even among the most respected Bible scholars (and now saints!), doesn't that say that this verse doesn't necessarily condemn sexual behavior between women?"
Yes, it may be possible that St Paul was not referring to lesbianism here. I think it unlikely, but it is possible. However, that does not mean that Scripture is silent on the issue. The New Testament clearly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman (1 Cor 7:2, 1 Tim 3:2) and teaches that sexual love can only be expressed within its confines. Marriage is strictly defined and is not a category of relationships, thus, any sexual expression outside of marriage is wrong. Since, by definition, 2 men and 2 women cannot be married, sexual activity between them can only be construed as sinful. Let me illustrate in a different sphere. To my knowledge, Scripture is silent on the issue of oral sex, and yet, this silence is not taken to mean that oral sex between a spouse and a non-spouse is anything but adultery. Even if there is no verse that explicitly references lesbianism, their is still a system in place from which to reason on these topics.
"And if that's true, then nowhere in the Bible is sexual behavior between women condemned. So why do women have to obey a non-existant command, one that basically eviscerates their entire lives? Nobody else is required to be celibate for life, except gay people."
Are you honestly arguing that the Bible affirms female homosexual relationships, but condemns male homosexuality? This is another problem with your argument - why would God be inconsistent in this manner? If male gay sex is wrong, why would female gay sex be right? What is the ontological difference between them?
"We think that it's not "homosexuality" that is condemned by the Bible, but the exploitative homosexual relationships...The Timothy and Corinthians verses use a word that was never translated as 'homosexuality' until 1946...Nobody knows the actual meaning of the word, because it doesn't exist before the author's use of it in these passages. An obscure word whose exact meaning is unknown is a very bad basis for condemnation of anything, wouldn't you agree?"
I agree that this word should be translated "homosexual" since the idea (life-long sexual/romantic attraction to members of the same sex) and the term, were not developed until the 19th century. There cannot be a direct translation like that. However, the meaning is not as obscure as you think. Paul uses the formulation "arsenokoites", which is actually a combination of words from the Septuagint version of Leviticus 18:22. "Arseno" refers to mankind (if I remember corectly) and "koites" means laying together, hence the word may be better translated as "engagers in homosexual acts" rather than just "homosexual." Given that Paul uses language directly from Leviticus, I think we can safely assume there is some continuity of teaching on this matter and thus cannot simply reject the Levitical Law on this specific topic based on Christians not adhering to other parts. Additionally, I think the meaning of the word is relatively clear when seen in this context, and so we can safely make moral judgments based upon it.
"I agree about the teaching on marriage, though: the Bible gives instructions based on heterosexual unions. But these can't be used to say anything about homosexual unions, can they?"
I'm not sure why you would make that assumption. As I pointed out above, marriage is not a category of relationships, but is itself a strictly defined relationship. There may be many different types of friendships, business contracts, etc, that all fall under those general categories, but marriage is not such a general category. It is singularly defined, just as father, son, brother, uncle, etc, each has a singular definition. So yes, instructions about heterosexual unions say much about homosexual ones; they preclude them.
"Anyway, polygamy was certainly permitted all throughout the Old Testament, and some of the Bible's greatest heros from that period had numerous wives. Adultery had a differnt meaning, also. I'm trying to point out that the institution of 'marriage' has indeed been quite fluid over the centuries."
You are correct. But can you show me one instance where the Bible mentions any marriage between people of the same sex? I don't think you can. Even in cases of polygamy, the women were married to the man and not to each other. I think it would be a stretch, especially in light of NT teaching, to assume that the instituation of marriage is so fluid as to include homosexual unions.
"And my main point here is to wonder why God would punish homosexuality so severely, when the condemnations are few and far between, the basis for condemnation unclear and weak in my opinion, and almost everybody agrees at this point that homoesexual orientation is unchosen. It just doesn't make any sense - and the information above about Romans confirms that, IMO."
What punishment are you referring to? Is it the temporal "punishment" of singleness & celibacy, or the eternal punishment talked about by Paul?
"The issue is that human beings have a deep desire for partnership, and that desire expresses itself in marriage. 95% of Americans marry at some point in their lives; I think that demonstrates that it's a basic sort of instinct. I know hetersexual couples who don't plan to have children, yet still got married. You just can't deny this basic urge to people for their entire lives; imagine this for yourself, if you can."
I agree that people have a deep desire for partnership - it is a part of being human. I have never denied the humanity of homosexuals in this regard and would oppose anyone who did. However, I think we are talking about 2 separate issues that, in my mind, can't necessarily be combined. There is the legal issue of whether or not the state should recognize gay marriage and the spiritual issue, which actually breaks down into the individual and the corporate. How should the individual homosexual live his life based on biblical teaching, conscience, prayer, etc? And should the chuch recognize or bless homosexual unions?
Legally, there is nothing preventing homosexuals from finding a partner, committing themselves to each other and spending the rest of their lives together. Yes, there are some additional legal hoops to jump through regarding wills, visitation rights, etc, but those are all surmountable. No one is denying any gay person the right to find a life-partner and fulfill that profound desire for partnership & love. Things are indeed different on the spiritual front, but I think we should decide how to proceed first - do we focuse on the legal or the spiritual? I would prefer the spiritual, but am willing to tackle both, so I leave it up to you to decide where we go from here.
Sanding musings
During nearly 10 hours of floor sanding, performed with the assistance of the much appreciated father-in-law, my mind tended to wander. Apart from repeatedly cursing the person who put multiple coats of lead paint on my floor, and then repenting of said cursing, and then praying that I could get all the boards evenly sanded and then praying I didn't sand through the floor, I thought about a few different things.
First, I reviewed the Law & Order episode I blogged on last week and realized that if I were a gay person, I would actually be quite mad about that show. The gay "spouse" refused to testify because Jack had gotten the gay marriages overturned and accused Jack of "undermining everything that I am" or something similar. But what did that marriage say about "all that he is"? If the marriages were valid, then he was an adulterer and until the defense lawyer made claims to spousal privilege, he hadn't really thought twice about testifying against his spouse once it became clear the cops might accuse him of being an accessory. Apparently "everything that he is" is a selfish adulterer looking out for number one while seeking the right to marry just because he likes the idea of it and not because he is actually committed to treating it with honor and respect. What does that say about gays?
Second, I thought about the ministry I'm in. We had a ministry leaders lunch - which we have usually about once a month - for the volunteers who head our various ministries; music, drama, greeter/ushers, hospital visitation, etc. Our senior pastor gave a short speech about his vision for our church and what makes us different from other churches in the area. Long story short, he said a few people who had been at an "intro to *** community church" class had said they came from other churches because of a lack of preaching from the word, in-depth worship and that kind of thing - stuff mature Christians are concerned with. The senior pastor told them, basically, if you're looking to "receive" here go someplace else - our ministry is meant for the unreached. If you're looking to "give" here, to help others on their way to Christ, then by all means stay. The wife and I talked about this later that night and came to the conclusion that this kind of thing can only happen in a once-saved-always-saved culture. Getting people into heaven through a profession of faith in Christ is the main task. After that, they're locked in and any depth of spiritual growth or maturity is just icing on the cake. This runs pretty contrary to my view of things - spiritual growth and maturity must necessarily follow any conversion. Christ did not say "go therefore, and make converts of all the nations," He said to make disciples. Are we succeeding in the great commission if all we do is win people to Christ without helping them towards discipleship?
Third, how am I doing in regards to the above? I sometimes have a crisis of confidence in my ministry - whether or not I'm doing a good job, whether or not I'm making a difference with these kids, whether or not I'm influencing their eternal residence. I spend a lot of time on living the Christian life, but I don't present the Gospel a lot because I assume most of these kids are already Christian. Some of them invite friends, but we're not really growing too much. I see good signs in a lot of the kids, but I still struggle with measuring success - and what even constitutes success? I would love a nice, easy definition, but I suspect that there isn't one.
First, I reviewed the Law & Order episode I blogged on last week and realized that if I were a gay person, I would actually be quite mad about that show. The gay "spouse" refused to testify because Jack had gotten the gay marriages overturned and accused Jack of "undermining everything that I am" or something similar. But what did that marriage say about "all that he is"? If the marriages were valid, then he was an adulterer and until the defense lawyer made claims to spousal privilege, he hadn't really thought twice about testifying against his spouse once it became clear the cops might accuse him of being an accessory. Apparently "everything that he is" is a selfish adulterer looking out for number one while seeking the right to marry just because he likes the idea of it and not because he is actually committed to treating it with honor and respect. What does that say about gays?
Second, I thought about the ministry I'm in. We had a ministry leaders lunch - which we have usually about once a month - for the volunteers who head our various ministries; music, drama, greeter/ushers, hospital visitation, etc. Our senior pastor gave a short speech about his vision for our church and what makes us different from other churches in the area. Long story short, he said a few people who had been at an "intro to *** community church" class had said they came from other churches because of a lack of preaching from the word, in-depth worship and that kind of thing - stuff mature Christians are concerned with. The senior pastor told them, basically, if you're looking to "receive" here go someplace else - our ministry is meant for the unreached. If you're looking to "give" here, to help others on their way to Christ, then by all means stay. The wife and I talked about this later that night and came to the conclusion that this kind of thing can only happen in a once-saved-always-saved culture. Getting people into heaven through a profession of faith in Christ is the main task. After that, they're locked in and any depth of spiritual growth or maturity is just icing on the cake. This runs pretty contrary to my view of things - spiritual growth and maturity must necessarily follow any conversion. Christ did not say "go therefore, and make converts of all the nations," He said to make disciples. Are we succeeding in the great commission if all we do is win people to Christ without helping them towards discipleship?
Third, how am I doing in regards to the above? I sometimes have a crisis of confidence in my ministry - whether or not I'm doing a good job, whether or not I'm making a difference with these kids, whether or not I'm influencing their eternal residence. I spend a lot of time on living the Christian life, but I don't present the Gospel a lot because I assume most of these kids are already Christian. Some of them invite friends, but we're not really growing too much. I see good signs in a lot of the kids, but I still struggle with measuring success - and what even constitutes success? I would love a nice, easy definition, but I suspect that there isn't one.
11.12.2004
This probably isn't going to help....
Knowing, as we do, the territoriality of the Muslim faith - I have specifically in mind here reports that there were many more recruits while we were fighting in Najaf because Muslims were opposed to our proximity to the shrines - why would you let a photographer take this picture? Seeing a bunch of solders lounging around in a mosque with their boots on and anti-tank weapons set casually on the floor probably isn't going to be the best PR. I know its just a little thing in a sea of much, much larger things, but it still seems pretty stupid to me.
11.11.2004
Law & Order tackles gay marriage
The wife & I greatly prefer Criminal Intent, but we occasionally watch the original Law & Order with its "ripped from the headlines" episodes. I'm not sure if last night's episode really falls into the headlines category, but it did touch on more than a few current events. For those who didn't see it, here is the basic premise:
Wife of governor is killed at a fundraiser luncheon. Police discover that governor is unethically favoring one company for government contracts. Police find out that the owner of said company is gay and is blackmailing his brother-in-law who has cooked the books for said company. Police talk to owner's boyfriend, find out he is sleeping with the governor. Boyfriend tells police company owner admitted to killing the wife because she was going to go public with the gay affair and the governor would have to resign and the company owner would lose his lucrative government contracts. District attorney tries to get boyfriend to testify, but the couple had gotten married in a small town in up-state New York and conversation falls under marital privilege. DA gets all the marriages overturned but spouse/boyfriend refuses to testify because of it. Company owner cops a plea and goes to jail.
All in all, it wasn't a bad episode. However, I did have some problems with it. First, the assistant DA's are set against each other as to how to proceed with the case. The younger, female ADA (Serena) basically gives up on the case after learning the couple got married, while the older, male ADA (Jack) is willing to challenge the marriages in order to get the conviction. Serena opposes Jack's challenge to the marriages because she thinks it will "set gay rights back 20 years" and thinks that limiting the marital privilege to heterosexual couples is based solely on prejudice and being "captive to the religious right." She even accuses Jack of letting the "nuns get into his head." The implications are quite obvious: no right-thinking individual could ever be opposed to gay marriage on strictly rational grounds. Such opposition could only spring from prejudice & ignorance based on homophobia and religious indoctrination. The show seemed to portray Serena's attitude in a positive light and easily took for granted that the gay marriages should be considered valid. Serena also questioned Jack's negative assessment of the governor's moral sense - a man married for 19 years with 2 children who had an affair. Serena seemed to think there was nothing really wrong with this since he was just being "true to himself" and Jack's view was not adequately explored. At one point they also compared the gay-marriage campaign to the civil rights movement of the 60's.
The second thing I disliked had more to do with characterization than the plot itself. Jack is normally very rigid on the law, and while he is aggressive, he respects legal dictates and understands that the system will sometimes allow a criminal to go free in order to protect the rights of the rest of us. But in this episode, he is portayed as coldly opportunistic, looking for every underhanded trick he can think of to get this gay man convicted. Serena's stance that the gay marriages shouldn't be challenged is favored, while Jack is accused of homophobia and ignorance. While he ultimately succeeds in getting the marriages overturned, the boyfriend/spouse refuses to testify stating that "we will not be treated like second-class citizens." This statement goes unchallenged and the show took zero time to explore the reasons why people are opposed to gay marriage, for both religious and non-religious reasons.
I realize this is not a political show and isn't meant to be a forum for social debate, but this was so subtely biased that I'm afraid this is the kind of stuff that will inform many people's thoughts. For an issue like this, we can't allow the debate to rely on facile arguments & prejudice of any kind.
Wife of governor is killed at a fundraiser luncheon. Police discover that governor is unethically favoring one company for government contracts. Police find out that the owner of said company is gay and is blackmailing his brother-in-law who has cooked the books for said company. Police talk to owner's boyfriend, find out he is sleeping with the governor. Boyfriend tells police company owner admitted to killing the wife because she was going to go public with the gay affair and the governor would have to resign and the company owner would lose his lucrative government contracts. District attorney tries to get boyfriend to testify, but the couple had gotten married in a small town in up-state New York and conversation falls under marital privilege. DA gets all the marriages overturned but spouse/boyfriend refuses to testify because of it. Company owner cops a plea and goes to jail.
All in all, it wasn't a bad episode. However, I did have some problems with it. First, the assistant DA's are set against each other as to how to proceed with the case. The younger, female ADA (Serena) basically gives up on the case after learning the couple got married, while the older, male ADA (Jack) is willing to challenge the marriages in order to get the conviction. Serena opposes Jack's challenge to the marriages because she thinks it will "set gay rights back 20 years" and thinks that limiting the marital privilege to heterosexual couples is based solely on prejudice and being "captive to the religious right." She even accuses Jack of letting the "nuns get into his head." The implications are quite obvious: no right-thinking individual could ever be opposed to gay marriage on strictly rational grounds. Such opposition could only spring from prejudice & ignorance based on homophobia and religious indoctrination. The show seemed to portray Serena's attitude in a positive light and easily took for granted that the gay marriages should be considered valid. Serena also questioned Jack's negative assessment of the governor's moral sense - a man married for 19 years with 2 children who had an affair. Serena seemed to think there was nothing really wrong with this since he was just being "true to himself" and Jack's view was not adequately explored. At one point they also compared the gay-marriage campaign to the civil rights movement of the 60's.
The second thing I disliked had more to do with characterization than the plot itself. Jack is normally very rigid on the law, and while he is aggressive, he respects legal dictates and understands that the system will sometimes allow a criminal to go free in order to protect the rights of the rest of us. But in this episode, he is portayed as coldly opportunistic, looking for every underhanded trick he can think of to get this gay man convicted. Serena's stance that the gay marriages shouldn't be challenged is favored, while Jack is accused of homophobia and ignorance. While he ultimately succeeds in getting the marriages overturned, the boyfriend/spouse refuses to testify stating that "we will not be treated like second-class citizens." This statement goes unchallenged and the show took zero time to explore the reasons why people are opposed to gay marriage, for both religious and non-religious reasons.
I realize this is not a political show and isn't meant to be a forum for social debate, but this was so subtely biased that I'm afraid this is the kind of stuff that will inform many people's thoughts. For an issue like this, we can't allow the debate to rely on facile arguments & prejudice of any kind.
11.04.2004
100,000
To preface this, I was in the Army Reserves for 7 years and was deployed 3 times; once voluntarily and twice involuntarily. I was a counterintelligence agent and did strategic intel work, including counter-terrorism analysis and tactical intel work in Bosnia as a team sergeant for a "Force Protection Team." My moral views on war and being in the army have shifted considerably since then, but I can identify with the soldiers currently deployed (to a limited extent, having never been in combat) and my experience does give me a different perspective on what is happening in the world today.
As I mentioned earlier, I was unable to vote for a variety of reasons, but I probably would have cast for Bush. That vote, however, would have been geared towards life issues and little else. I believe the war in Iraq was a miscalculation that is going to present problems for the US for years to come. The war has spurred Iran & North Korea's nuclear weapons programs since that is the only conceivable deterrent to the US. North Korea effectively holds Seoul hostage with conventional weapons - nuclear weapons is the icing on the cake allowing it to threaten Japan, as well. If Iran acquires or manufactures nuclear weapons, Israel is the obvious target. Those are but 2 of the numerous reasons I was opposed to this war, which included both moral & strategic/political concerns.
Now, comes the report from the Lancet, a British medical journal, that their research has concluded that the "excess deaths" in the 17 months after the war is in excess of 98,000 at a conservative estimate. The Lancet's exact findings:
The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6–4·2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1·5-fold (1·1–2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000–194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1–419) than in the period before the war.*
98,000+ deaths, which is over 6 times the count of Iraq Body Count, which as of right now, has the death toll between 14,219 and 16,352. I was thinking about this last night - 100,000 or more people dead, many killed without warning by air strikes they never saw coming. I wondered how I would feel, if I were over there and a friend or a family member were killed by coalition forces. Of course, it must be pointed out that the death toll under Saddam was much higher though spread out over a longer period, but does it make a difference to the surviving spouses, parents, siblings or children who killed their loved ones? I would hope it would, but in their shoes I don't know what I would think. Right now, safe in my office, I think all the deaths under Saddam would have felt meaningless - no hope for change, no hope for the future, no hope for a better tomorrow in spite of the present pain. But now, with Saddam gone and Iraq moving towards democracy and freedom in fits & starts, I wonder if those 100,000 deaths feel the same. Is there a sense that those deaths, while tragic and painful, happened on the edge of a brighter future and in that way, were not meaningless or bereft of hope? I don't know how I would feel if I was an Iraqi and lost a family member like that, but I have to think (and pray) that hope permeates these tragedies and feeds the as yet tiny flames of a free future. Even if that is the case, is there any guilt in those deaths? Will we have a price to pay as a nation for extinguishing those innocent lives, even in the name of freedom?
Unfortunately, I think there is a strong possibility that we will, if only because we have masked these deaths with flippant slogans and wrong thinking. Take this from a "voting guide" by John Mark Reynolds:
[Bush] wants to bring liberty to Iraq. This is difficult, but if his plan works, terrorism will end forever.
No, liberty in Iraq will not end terrorism forever. Aside from the insurgency, which is not, strictly speaking, terrorism, I don't think a free Iraq will make a significant change in the level of global terrorism. Groups in Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Africa and elsewhere are unaffected by the Iraq war. Jemaah Islamiyah knows we will not invade Indonesia, even though they slaughter hundreds, if not thousands, of Christians every year. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Abu Sayyaf know we will not invade the Philippines no matter how many hostages they take or bombs they detonate on the island of Mindanao. A free Iraq might make a difference in Palestinian terrorism, since Saddam did fund suicide bombers but that funding has already been cut off. (Arafat's coma and possible death will hopefully have a much larger impact.) What does this type of lie - that liberty in Iraq will end terrorism - say about our attitude towards those 100,000 dead? It seems to me that being unrealistic about the purpose of their deaths, dishonors and trivializes them. Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like it empties them of that hope since our plan for what will happen is nothing but wishful thinking.
So what do we do? What should we think? How do we mourn these deaths? Should it change our actions on the ground? Should we be willing to put more of our own in harm's way to prevent the deaths of innocents on this scale?
* The Lancet believes the majority of deaths among women & children were due to air strikes. Their method is this:
A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17·8 months after the invasion with the 14·6-month period preceding it.
As I mentioned earlier, I was unable to vote for a variety of reasons, but I probably would have cast for Bush. That vote, however, would have been geared towards life issues and little else. I believe the war in Iraq was a miscalculation that is going to present problems for the US for years to come. The war has spurred Iran & North Korea's nuclear weapons programs since that is the only conceivable deterrent to the US. North Korea effectively holds Seoul hostage with conventional weapons - nuclear weapons is the icing on the cake allowing it to threaten Japan, as well. If Iran acquires or manufactures nuclear weapons, Israel is the obvious target. Those are but 2 of the numerous reasons I was opposed to this war, which included both moral & strategic/political concerns.
Now, comes the report from the Lancet, a British medical journal, that their research has concluded that the "excess deaths" in the 17 months after the war is in excess of 98,000 at a conservative estimate. The Lancet's exact findings:
The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6–4·2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1·5-fold (1·1–2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000–194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1–419) than in the period before the war.*
98,000+ deaths, which is over 6 times the count of Iraq Body Count, which as of right now, has the death toll between 14,219 and 16,352. I was thinking about this last night - 100,000 or more people dead, many killed without warning by air strikes they never saw coming. I wondered how I would feel, if I were over there and a friend or a family member were killed by coalition forces. Of course, it must be pointed out that the death toll under Saddam was much higher though spread out over a longer period, but does it make a difference to the surviving spouses, parents, siblings or children who killed their loved ones? I would hope it would, but in their shoes I don't know what I would think. Right now, safe in my office, I think all the deaths under Saddam would have felt meaningless - no hope for change, no hope for the future, no hope for a better tomorrow in spite of the present pain. But now, with Saddam gone and Iraq moving towards democracy and freedom in fits & starts, I wonder if those 100,000 deaths feel the same. Is there a sense that those deaths, while tragic and painful, happened on the edge of a brighter future and in that way, were not meaningless or bereft of hope? I don't know how I would feel if I was an Iraqi and lost a family member like that, but I have to think (and pray) that hope permeates these tragedies and feeds the as yet tiny flames of a free future. Even if that is the case, is there any guilt in those deaths? Will we have a price to pay as a nation for extinguishing those innocent lives, even in the name of freedom?
Unfortunately, I think there is a strong possibility that we will, if only because we have masked these deaths with flippant slogans and wrong thinking. Take this from a "voting guide" by John Mark Reynolds:
[Bush] wants to bring liberty to Iraq. This is difficult, but if his plan works, terrorism will end forever.
No, liberty in Iraq will not end terrorism forever. Aside from the insurgency, which is not, strictly speaking, terrorism, I don't think a free Iraq will make a significant change in the level of global terrorism. Groups in Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Africa and elsewhere are unaffected by the Iraq war. Jemaah Islamiyah knows we will not invade Indonesia, even though they slaughter hundreds, if not thousands, of Christians every year. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Abu Sayyaf know we will not invade the Philippines no matter how many hostages they take or bombs they detonate on the island of Mindanao. A free Iraq might make a difference in Palestinian terrorism, since Saddam did fund suicide bombers but that funding has already been cut off. (Arafat's coma and possible death will hopefully have a much larger impact.) What does this type of lie - that liberty in Iraq will end terrorism - say about our attitude towards those 100,000 dead? It seems to me that being unrealistic about the purpose of their deaths, dishonors and trivializes them. Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like it empties them of that hope since our plan for what will happen is nothing but wishful thinking.
So what do we do? What should we think? How do we mourn these deaths? Should it change our actions on the ground? Should we be willing to put more of our own in harm's way to prevent the deaths of innocents on this scale?
* The Lancet believes the majority of deaths among women & children were due to air strikes. Their method is this:
A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17·8 months after the invasion with the 14·6-month period preceding it.
11.03.2004
Homophobia
From dictionary.com:
ho·mo·pho·bi·a n.
1) Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2) Behavior based on such a feeling.
From Jeff Sharlet of the Revealer:
"Homophobia is a cross-party persuasion, but last night it figured most often in the votes of Republicans. A topic discussed more and more frequently as the pundits came to realize that their predictions had been wildly wrong was 'values' -- that is, in this election like no other, gay marriage. Let’s make that simpler, get to the root of the matter: gay sex."
When did making a moral decision about sexual activity or legally enforceable contracts become an issue of fear or contempt? Why is my evaluation of the biblical texts on homosexuality a fear-based decision, when my evaulation of the biblical texts on adultery a morality-based decision? Why have we let "homophobia" become so broadly defined as to include rational moral judgments?
ho·mo·pho·bi·a n.
1) Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2) Behavior based on such a feeling.
From Jeff Sharlet of the Revealer:
"Homophobia is a cross-party persuasion, but last night it figured most often in the votes of Republicans. A topic discussed more and more frequently as the pundits came to realize that their predictions had been wildly wrong was 'values' -- that is, in this election like no other, gay marriage. Let’s make that simpler, get to the root of the matter: gay sex."
When did making a moral decision about sexual activity or legally enforceable contracts become an issue of fear or contempt? Why is my evaluation of the biblical texts on homosexuality a fear-based decision, when my evaulation of the biblical texts on adultery a morality-based decision? Why have we let "homophobia" become so broadly defined as to include rational moral judgments?
11.02.2004
Do you ever...?
As I am quite sick of hearing about 1) the election, especially since I never got my absentee ballot from Arizona and am thus disenfranchised yet again (the same thing happened in 2000 when I was in Bosnia) and 2) the Episcopal/Druid liturgy debate (which I've been following mainly by way of Pontifications), I've decided to ask a serious question, especially for anyone ever involved in a ministerial leadership position.
Do you ever wake up the day after a sermon/Bible study/discussion and just ask yourself "what the hell was I thinking?" or "how did that happen?" Something happened or came up that, at the time, seemed like a good idea or topic, but after you've had a chance to think about it, you realize it may have been a mistake, that some people might be offended or upset if they heard about it since they didn't hear the whole conversation in context. I bring this up because on Sunday, I split the youth group up by gender - my wife took the girls to talk about modesty, boundaries in dating, etc, and I took the guys to talk about porn & masturbation. Ahh, the wonderful differences between the sexes! I didn't plan to just talk about porn & masturbation; I was also going to talk about boundaries in dating and respecting women by not treating them as objects, but that didn't happen. Reality crept in.
Every guy in that room, including several 11 year olds, had already seen porn- not surpising since statistically, one of the largest consumers of online porn is the 12-17 year old age group. Most had seen it while at school - either a friend brought something or they saw it online on a school computer. And while I didn't press the issue, it was clear that more than a few probably continued to view porn on a regular basis, so the conversation tended to stay focused on that. I talked about the effects of porn on the way we view women, violence towards women, sex & relationships, how it prevents us from having healthy relationships and desensitizes us to feeling real love & sexual pleasure. I also talked about how, like a drug, we need ever more explicit materials to get the same stimulation, which can lead to pretty sick stuff. This is where things got bad. I'm not really sure how it came up - whether someone asked a question or not - but somehow we started talking about that sick stuff. Stuff like child porn or porn dealing with urine or feces - the really warped, disgusting extreme that people are, unfortunately, drawn into through their porn addictions. I tried to emphasize that these people started off just looking at pictures - of some actress they found attractive or some "men's magazine" - but eventually went off the deep end. We didn't spend too much time on it, but it was definitely part of the conversation and probably the part kids will remember most. One parent, thankfully a very understanding parent, came in to talk to me about it. Having struggled with porn himself, he didn't mind what we talked about and thought it was good that it came up since it was something that shocked the kids and showed them in an extremely clear way how porn can change us. So far, no other parents have called or emailed, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they won't. Even now, though, I think the discussion was a good one - kids are rarely presented with the consequences of this kind of thing. In a culture that trivializes sex & pornography, the prevailing opinion seems to be that porn isn't all that bad, if not good for you. But its a blight on our nation and a cancer eating away at the men, especially the young men, of our society. Our kids have to see where it leads - the potenial depravity in all of us.
Do you ever wake up the day after a sermon/Bible study/discussion and just ask yourself "what the hell was I thinking?" or "how did that happen?" Something happened or came up that, at the time, seemed like a good idea or topic, but after you've had a chance to think about it, you realize it may have been a mistake, that some people might be offended or upset if they heard about it since they didn't hear the whole conversation in context. I bring this up because on Sunday, I split the youth group up by gender - my wife took the girls to talk about modesty, boundaries in dating, etc, and I took the guys to talk about porn & masturbation. Ahh, the wonderful differences between the sexes! I didn't plan to just talk about porn & masturbation; I was also going to talk about boundaries in dating and respecting women by not treating them as objects, but that didn't happen. Reality crept in.
Every guy in that room, including several 11 year olds, had already seen porn- not surpising since statistically, one of the largest consumers of online porn is the 12-17 year old age group. Most had seen it while at school - either a friend brought something or they saw it online on a school computer. And while I didn't press the issue, it was clear that more than a few probably continued to view porn on a regular basis, so the conversation tended to stay focused on that. I talked about the effects of porn on the way we view women, violence towards women, sex & relationships, how it prevents us from having healthy relationships and desensitizes us to feeling real love & sexual pleasure. I also talked about how, like a drug, we need ever more explicit materials to get the same stimulation, which can lead to pretty sick stuff. This is where things got bad. I'm not really sure how it came up - whether someone asked a question or not - but somehow we started talking about that sick stuff. Stuff like child porn or porn dealing with urine or feces - the really warped, disgusting extreme that people are, unfortunately, drawn into through their porn addictions. I tried to emphasize that these people started off just looking at pictures - of some actress they found attractive or some "men's magazine" - but eventually went off the deep end. We didn't spend too much time on it, but it was definitely part of the conversation and probably the part kids will remember most. One parent, thankfully a very understanding parent, came in to talk to me about it. Having struggled with porn himself, he didn't mind what we talked about and thought it was good that it came up since it was something that shocked the kids and showed them in an extremely clear way how porn can change us. So far, no other parents have called or emailed, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they won't. Even now, though, I think the discussion was a good one - kids are rarely presented with the consequences of this kind of thing. In a culture that trivializes sex & pornography, the prevailing opinion seems to be that porn isn't all that bad, if not good for you. But its a blight on our nation and a cancer eating away at the men, especially the young men, of our society. Our kids have to see where it leads - the potenial depravity in all of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
