Heavenly Motivation

This post is inspired by several things: ongoing thoughts and discussions I've been having, track #3 on Brett Dennen's newest CD, A book I've begun reading to review for The Ooze, and the teaching/video from church this morning (Listen Here).

I've grown up with the idea that Eternal Life, and the cross+resurrection was the FULL motivation and message of Christ's time on earth. When immersed in Conservative evangelical thinking growing up (not picking, just an observation), it seems that the focus is, as Rob Bell puts it in a recent interview, "focusing on only the last few chapters of the story." It seems that it is easy when focused SOOOO much on the Eternal Life angle, one forgets that there is more to the story of Jesus and God that precedes the "Easter Story".

Wade Bradshaw (in the book above) promotes that Heaven is the motivation for Christian living. He's not the first to mention this. I've heard countless sermons talking about how eternal life in Heaven should make us live in a different way. However, I don't think I completely agree with that. Is the hope of Heaven supposed to be our motivation? When Christ talks about the Kingdom of God and eternal life, was he trying to use that hope to motivate people to live in a correct way? Perhaps the answer to this is both, "yes" and "no", or simply "it depends".

Here's where my thoughts have gone of late. What if we took away the cross from the story of Christ? What if we took Eternal Life off of the table all together? Would there be anything left life changing? Would there be any reason left to follow Christ or to choose to worship God?

Would Jesus still be "worth" following?

Now look at how we think...the idea that Jesus has worth or value usually comes to most of us because we believe and are grateful for what God has DONE for us. It isn't because God is God, but because God gives us ______. I think of the phrase, "God has delivered me". Sounds like some sort of package or exchange; like, "I'll worship you God in exchange of your giving of _____."

That just doesn't seem to be how it should be. See, Jews worshiped God long before Jesus and the Cross came along. They simply thought that God was WORTHY of worship. The disciples followed Christ without the promise of eternal life up front. There was something about following Christ that offered a better life in general. It's almost like he wasn't GIVING us something, rather it's as if he was unlocking the potential within us. The potential to live a better life, to build the Kingdom of God on Earth, and to better the lives of others. Heaven, whatever that is to each of us, was just icing on the cake so to speak. I don't think it was meant to be a motivator, rather a support. Hope gives us support in the hard and tough times in our lives. Yes, hope can motivate, but I'm not convinced that this was the main purpose of Heaven. I've seen many people in the hospital utilize hope, but it, more often than not, brings them peace rather than motivation. Actually following that logic, after hearing some of the stories I have heard by a hospital bedside, the hope of Heaven as a motivator would not encourage them to cling to life or to fight in order to keep living. Although it can motivate, I don't think that it is the reason for hope. Heaven and eternal life is NOT the primary motivator, rather, wanting to live a life of contentment, purpose, and calling should be.

I think that's one reason that I talk to many evangelicals who could care less about ending world poverty, fighting diseases like AIDS, and taking care of the environment. When you think that the point of Christ/God's message is the cross, heaven, and the return of Christ to, "make a new heaven and a new earth," then why worry about those passing issues. The focus of life for so many who obsess on the "last couple of chapters" is DEATH! Death to get to the afterlife and "converting" others to think this same way is the way to live life? That just seems a little off compared to the full story of God and Christ.

If Christ came to give life and hope...then perhaps we should not be focusing so much on the afterlife, but the path in front of us that journeys through the present life.

(photo, "Road to heaven" by john @ lightproofbox)

Black Friday Gets Darker

I saw this sotry entitled:
As store worker died, shoppers kept on
on the front of today's N&O. It really saddened me.

The Friday after thanksgiving supposedly marks the official beginning of the Christmas season. Even in the secular understanding of the holiday, it is supposed to be a time of goodwill and glad tidings. This year, Black Friday captured neither goodwill or glad tidings. However, it captured our greed, selfishness, and self-obsession quite well.

Sad.

There is also a good post HERE by Neale Donald Walsh on Beliefnet.

Same Sex Marriage Blogalogue

An interesting discussion Over at Beliefnet between Tony Jones (Emergent Church) and Rod Dreher (Conservative politics and religion blogger) on the issue of Same Sex Marriage. Obviously this is a hot topic after the prop. 8 vote.

I am not promoting one over the other as the discussion continues (it will continue over several weeks), but give ear to both writers and the comments. It is a great resource that you can participate in...just please do so respectfully on all sides!

check Tony's first post here, Rod's is linked at the end of Tony's post, and at the top of this post.

feel free to leave your thoughts here too if you like!



A taste of the discussion!

Advent Conspiracy?!

A link worth checking out at the end of the video. To think that following Christ and ALL of his teachings along with his life's example could still change the world? A stretch? Perhaps.... or maybe not!

Have An Intentional Holiday

With Thanksgiving and all of the other holidays coming upon us, I've had a few thoughts running through my head I would like to share. Something that I plan to practice this year, and am hopeful that this will inspire others to do the same.

It all started with pondering rituals. We all have rituals. As a Christian who has spent his life in church, rituals/traditions and holidays just go together. As a minister every year if and when we were having the Christmas Eve service came up as an issue. (Just a kind thought on that, as a minister who has SEVERAL families that we need to try to see, very few parishioners think about how much more stress these extra services put on ministers. We don't get the luxury of not showing up because we have family to travel to see. Please be careful about the expectations you place on your ministers. Just a personal aside!) So anyway, churches have rituals, families have rituals, and even as individuals we have routines/habits/rituals in our daily lives.

The problem with rituals is that they become...well habitual. We do them without thinking about the reason. We don't stop and ask, "why is this a ritual, and why is it important?" Mom spends all day cooking the meal, making sure that she meets everyone's expectations (wouldn't want to not have the stuffing...it's a ritual!), and the guys hang out, eat, then go watch football afterwards. Some families say grace, others don't. Some families say what their thankful for, others don't. Some families argue and some don't.

I was wondering, what would happen if we slow down in this overly ritualistic time of the year (I don't mean overly in a bad way, just that there's a lot), and be intentional about what we do? What if we acted not out of ritual but intention?

Perhaps mom wouldn't be alone in the kitchen. Perhaps we would take the time to show gratitude to each other through the whole day rather than a quick mention at the table. Perhaps we would choose a family game over the pigskin and gridiron on TV. Perhaps we would live the whole day in prayer and meditate on what that means.

OR, perhaps nothing physically would change in our routine, but we would understand why we do what we do. What if we applied this to all the rituals in our lives...in our families...in our churches? Maybe then, the rituals would be less habitual and more intentional!

(painting by norman rockwell)

Loss Of Focus?

I found these thoughts and news interesting from Adam over at POMOMUSINGS. Concerning James Dobson and Focus on the Family's priorities of late.

(Original Source)

It’s good to see that Dr. Dobson and the crew in Colorado Springs at Focus on
the Family really does put families first…well, maybe not those whose family members actually work at Focus on the Family. There was an interesting article in The Colorado Independent entitled “More
layoffs at Focus on the Family” that told the story about how 202 jobs will
be cut from Focus on the Family. However, the article focused on how Focus on
the Family was one of the largest out-of-state financial backers for Prop 8 in
California. In fact, the organization gave $539,000 in cash and $83,000 of
non-monetary support to the fight to “protect marriage.” Over half a million
dollars spent to “protect” families from the dangers and evils of gay marriage.
Unfortunately, they didn’t do a good job of protecting their own; how 202
families will be suffering a loss and needing to find work elsewhere. Sure, the
current state of the economy is playing a major role in these layoffs, I’m sure.
However, the articles points out that this may simply be a good example of the
true priorities of Focus on the Family, and other like organizations. Are they
really trying to put families first? It’d be interesting to hear from some of
those who are going to be laid off, especially after Dobson and crew spent their
salaries trying to prevent gays in another state from getting hitched.

I ask myself, did they lose focus, or consciously decide that a loss to that many families was worth defeating prop. 8 (the same employees that helped fight that ironically enough). IDK, as someone struggling in this economic crisis with job security, I guess my priorities would have been a little different! Just my 2 cents tho... (which is worth absolutely nothing in this economy)

Your thoughts?

Brian McLaren on "The Voice"

I recently plugged The Voice, A new Bible translation now available. Today, on Emergant Villiage's blog, Brian McLaren writes about working on the project and a little more on what the purpose of this translation is. There's a lot of info in the article.

Check it out here!!

There's also a video which I will post here...but the article is worth reading!

Election Afterwards: A Reflection

John Ortberg Writes a great post as he reflects on the election, and the role that Christians seem to play in politics. He calls it the, “Seven Deadly Sins of Evangelicals and Politics.”

It is a good reflection and warning about how NOT to approach an election as traditionally most Christians (esp. evangelicals) seem to do. I post this because of my own conversations during this election season, and I see how utterly true this has been. I've cut-and-pasted the list below.
_-_-_-_
Messianism. The sin of believing that a merely human person or system can usher in the eschaton. This is often tipped off by phrases like: “The most important election of our lifetime” (which one wasn’t?); or “God’s man for the hour.”

Selective Scripturization. The sin of using Scripture to reinforce whatever attitude toward the president you feel like holding, while shellacking it with a thin spiritual veneer. If the candidate you like holds office, you consistently point people toward Romans 13: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.” If your candidate lost, you consistently point people to Acts 4:10 where Peter and John say to the Sanhedrin: “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.” It’s just lucky for us the Bible is such a big book.

Easy Believism. This is the sin of believing the worst about a candidate you disagree with, because when you want them to lose you actually want to believe bad things about them. “Love is patient, love is kind,” Paul said. “Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth.” But in Paul’s day nobody ran for Caesar. There was no talk radio.

Episodism. The sin of being engaged in civic life only on a random basis. The real issues never go away, but we’re tempted to give them our attention only when the news about them is controversial, or simplistic, or emotionally charged. Sustained attention to vital but unsexy issues is not our strong suit.

Alarmism. A friend of mine used to work for an organization that claimed both Christian identity and a particular political orientation. They actually liked it when a president was elected of the opposite persuasion, because it meant they could raise a lot more money. It is in their financial interests to convince their constituents that the president is less sane than Jack Nicholson in The Shining. Alarmists on both sides of the spectrum make it sound like we’re electing a Bogeyman-in-Chief every four years. I sometimes think we should move the election up a few days to October 31.

One Issue-ism. Justifying our intolerance of complexity and nuance by collapsing a decision into a simplistic and superficial framework.

Pride. I couldn’t think of a snappy title for this one. But politics, after all, is largely about power. And power goes to the core of our issues of control and narcissism and need to be right and tendency to divide the human race into ‘us’ vs. ‘them.’
_____

Find it in full here.
NOTE: I place the picture of our President-Elect, not to point out that this happens one-sided. It is on both sides, but this is the man that was elected, and I like putting up pictures to easily identify posts:)
Thanks to Mike for pointing this out.
let me know your thoughts.

The Voice

Recently I've jokingly had a discussion about the amount of Bibles that I own. My wife sarcastically asked, "how many Bibles does one person need?" While I agree that the average person doesn't need 20 different Bibles, my suggestion is that people who want to engage in deeper study (above simply reading) that they have at least 2. You need one good translation, and one good Study Bible. I also suggest that they check out ones that are written in easier language, which until recently consisted of pretty much either The Message or The Living Bible. These are paraphrases, and cannot be depended on for a good translation. I also usually promote the Amplified Bible since it tries to keep the feel of the original language.

Here are my top Bibles I use:
1) The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (NRSV)-- Got me through 2 religion degrees
2) Archaeological Study Bible: An Illustrated Walk Through Biblical History and Culture (NIV)-- A fantastic Bible that takes you into the context and history of the Bible.
3) The NoteWorthy New Testament (TNIV)-- This small leather-bound Bible has every other page blank for note-taking, a lot like my beloved Moleskine notebooks.
_-_-_-_
My latest Bible is the reason for this post. It is a newer Bible (only NT so far) that I was really skeptical about, but it has recently won me over.

The Voice




This is a new project that tries to recapture the feel of the original texts with the accuracy of translation. This translation is called a Dynamic Translation, which means it is short of a paraphrase, but still not as accurate and academic as some of the best translations. However, it is easy to read, and it's language is beautiful. They partnered good writers (Leonard Sweet, Donald Miller, Sara Groves, Matt Wertz, Brian McLaren, Phyllis Tickle, and more) With renowned Biblical scholars. This means that the commentary notes are insightful, and the language is poetic where it should be poetry, conversation where it should be dialog, and well-written narrative where narratives are being told.

The People picked to work on this Bible come from all across the spectrum in their beliefs. The Voice truly feels balanced (and by the credits I would say that each "side" has had just as much input). It is Holistic. It does a fantastic job of trying to capture the holistic understanding of spirituality, as well as the holistic meanings usually lost to our 21st century readings of loaded words.

For instance, Acts 2: 42-47 does not use the word saved/salvation. I know that that right there will turn many hard-core evangelicals off, but it is a more contextually honest translation and feeling of the text. It replaces the phrase, "...those being saved." to, "everyone who was experiencing liberation." That doesn't mean that the word "saved" is not a correct way to translate there, but Paul is speaking about something far bigger (the work and teachings of Jesus) than the connotation of the word "saved" usually means for us today. Paul is speaking about more than just eternal security, but those being liberated into a new life. I truly like the choices of wording in The Voice for the most part.

I had already done my research of context and translation for our Bible Study last week (which included this passage in Acts), and then went and read the passages in The Voice. Along with the commentary, I truly was struck with how readable, discussable, and insightful this translation is. This is one of the most accessible Bibles I have ever read, and will be a constant resource for my personal study, as well as teaching/leading/discussing Bible Study.

The Voice features:

Screenplay-like format, ideal for public readings and group studies
Insightful commentary within the passages (not a "Study Bible" or
truly a "Devotional Bible")
Book introductions that are concise, but spot on and very informative in
contextualizing the book

I encourage people to check this out. To grab it, and let it grab you! Again, it shouldn't replace a good academic translation, but it can be a great constant companion, and truly a Bible that is hard to put down! My hope is that they continue on with an OT, and it can't get here soon enough!

Check it out and let me know your thoughts.

Relativism Pt.2: A Response

I've been thinking a lot about how to respond to the article a few posts back from John Piper called Relativism Challenged. It is far to tedious, and I believe unnecessary, for me to go paragraph by paragraph/point by point through his essay. So I think I'm going for more of a general approach, although if through responses there seems the need for clarity or specificity, I will be glad to dialog in more detail.

Piper begins by trying to define "relativism". I think he does a poor job both in his definition and his over-simplistic analogies. For one, he does not do the word justice by suggesting that there is only a single type of relativism. Yes he is trying to make the term easier to understand (a simple Wiki-search reveals the complexity), but there are some philosophical concepts that when over-simplified completely distort the defined understanding of the term/concept. It also doesn't help that he has a definite bias when it comes to this topic. If one has read/heard anything from Piper in the last 2 years, they know that he sees relativism as a threat to the "truth" of Christianity. While I can understand why some would think that, it is not an honest way in which to tackle an explanation of a philosophical concept. It isn't a healthy way in which to even tackle reality in general.

While he does begin to tackle ONE facet of relativism, he later departs from that concept into a convoluted marriage of several relative theories. He doesn't quite get the type of relativism that is present in today's Christianity.

So what is the relativism we face? Here is a better explanation, although not as eloquent. This is practical relativism, over say strictly moral or object relativism. Defined, (as Jeff put it in the comments of the previous post) relativism is the lenses through which we take in and process reality. How we do these things are relative to our race, upbringing, ethics, culture, socio-economic class, age, geography, sex, Religion, etc... A person who is of an African-American Heritage does not see and interpret things the same way as a white person does. Neither does a male and female think and process alike. This is called CONTEXT. We all think out of several specific contexts, and my contexts may not be the same as yours.

The picture above is a neat take on Joseph Jastrow's Duck-Rabbit Illusion (real image here). Wittgenstein refers to this illusion above to make the point that we all see and process differently. Some first see a duck, and some first see the rabbit. People sometimes will not be able to see both, and thus argue that it is a duck vs. a Rabbit.

That leads us to the part that people like Piper and John MacArthur are fighting against in our emerging worldview, relative (T)truth. This is what they see as the biggest threat to Christianity. What is Truth? See, we can't even begin talking about what it is without relativity showing up. It is just fact that people perceive truth differently.

As is shown very poorly (and I would argue, irresponsibly) in the conclusion of his essay, Truth for him is a conglomeration of many smaller truths. Allow me to play devil's advocate. He states that Jesus is the "Truth". And here's how that conversation can go:

What makes Jesus the "Truth"?
That he is the "way, truth and light, no one comes to heaven or the father
except through him"
How do I know that is true?
The Bible says it is so.
But what if I don't believe the Bible to be true?

Thus the argument and definition of "Truth" has already become convoluted. Usually the argument/debate's next step is to either pull a Bible out and use apologetics to "prove" truth, or the person results to threats of, "well it just says so and you have to believe it or you will go to Hell."

To say that our postmodern/relative culture does not believe in "Truth" is a false and unfair statement. While there are a few people out there that will say "I don't believe in Absolute Truth." One should point out that to believe there is not an absolute truth is to claim a truth. However, most people say something along the lines of this: "I believe in a higher Truth, but do not believe that it is completely knowable because it is so big and we are so small in comparison." In fact most people would call this Truth, "God".

And there-in lies the big difference. This understanding of "Truth" is not based on a set of concepts or standards, this "Truth" is based on something bigger than theology, the Bible, and even Jesus. In fact, this "Truth" is so big that it transcends any one context (culture, race, class, religion, etc...). Paraphrasing and substituting a sentence by Marcus Borg about the Bible, "The Bible is not [Truth], it is a finger pointing to [Truth].

Piper makes the statement before his 5-part "solution", how evil and destructive some of [relativism's] effects are." Now that is a subjective and relative statement at it's finest. From the point of view of a Christian who proclaims that they hold the "Truth" (concepts and ideas deemed to be true above other "truths"), relativism is a scary thing. Although Piper doesn't truly understand practical relativism (judging from this article and other resources he as published/preached), the idea that "Truth" is not concepts and ideas is threatening.

However, many who understand this reality of relativism see it not as evil, but as a great chance. Why? Because it people are more open to dialog about God now than they have been in the last century. However, because of the way God has been "delivered" in the past century, one has to be cautious in HOW they speak of God. People are willing to discuss but do not want to be lectured or proofed/apologized.

I find it interesting that many people like Piper and John MacArthur (and MANY others) believe that Apologetics is the correct way to reach the more relative thinking people. There is even something called "The New Apologetics" that has stemmed out of this.

But emerging people desire authentic conversation. They want to be HEARD and not preached at or debated. They want you to give them something to think about as they leave, but they also want to contribute to to discussion in such a way that you leave thinking about something they've said too! It's not arguing that there is ONLY the duck OR the Rabbit, but working together so that both see the duckrabbit.

For the first time in a long time, people are searching for "Truth", but they already have a head start in believing that this "Truth" is a higher power. For the first time in a long time, Christianity can become a monotheistic belief again. Throughout modernity we have made other Gods in Christianity. Doctrine, theology, rules, titles, preachers, pews, the Bible, etc... have all become our demi-gods. But we have the chance to start anew and say that God is bigger than any one person, theology, book, etc.. can understand. Let's explore "Truth" together! What do you say?

___________

Other helpful links:

no, i did not simply do research on Wiki. I simply refer to that for convenience and easy understanding. There are many great books/philosophers/ministers/etc... out there that I could point one to. Here are just a few simple links from both sides:

A discussion on this article @ Small Dead Animals

Tall Skinny Kiwi

Apologetic's look at Relativism

Cartoons Of The Day

Several here that I've been collecting... I'll let them speak for themselves, but remember. I post these not to always be critical, but to always make me (and hopefully others) think. So I would love to hear your thoughts!

above and below by jon birch and ASBO

below by david hayward

Presented so that we may all think critically about our faith, and ponder our journey.