Lowell Hennigs's profileStill WanderingPhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
|
May 31 Journal Star article on Tanzanian visitorsStill at the Nebraska Synod assembly--great speakers, good friends, and ENOUGH COFFEE!!!
You can read an article by Bob Reeves on our Tanzanian visitors here in Lincoln. Go to
It's an excellent article. We want to thank Bob for his excellent work, his kind support and the extra time he spent to develop this story. May 30 Part of Nebraska Synod HistoryWhat a joy and privilege to be part of the fifteenth anniversary of the companion synod relationship between the Nebraska Synod and the Northern Dioces ELCT! I have some updated photos from today at the synod assembly in Grand Island. It was a magnficent celebration. Our guests are having a fantastic time, and all of us connected with them feel so privileged to be part of this whole experience. Tomorrow they tour the GI and Hastings area.
They had the chance, thanks to Greg and Susan, to see the 3D Imax at the Henry Doorly Zoo this week. What a marvelous experience for them! They loved the capital, Memorial stadium and Northstar High School.
Asante sana. Amen. Speak Truth--Flee InfluenceFor I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith." (Romans 1:16-17 NRSV) Another preacher type has said something stupid as he tries to support the Democratic candidacy of Barack Obama. I cannot begin to describe how many ways in which this is wrong, inappropriate and idiotic. The content is reprehensible. The tone is offensive. The video is destructive for civil discourse, regardless of one's political preferences. This is another black eye for the Christian Church in this country.
Christian leaders have such seductive opportunities to influence the politcal process in our country in the coming twelve months. Some stand so close to the temporal powers that they begin to think they ought to have that power as well. This is incredibly dangerous to the church's gospel witness and to the health of any political process. Western history certainly bears out the idea that whenever the Christian church has accumulated temporal power, the gospel has suffered setbacks and innocent people have suffered. Which part of that record is unclear to contemporary preachers?
Oh, Pastor, some might say, why can't you speak more clearly and directly about current politics? John Hagee, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger--need I say more? What incredibly poor judgment these leaders have exercised! But the seductions of real power in the historical moment are intense. These seductions are almost irresistible for some. In the youtube age, a false step toward the baubles of power lands one on video screens around the world in hours or days. How can this be good for the gospel of Jesus Christ?
The task of the preacher always is to speak God's truth in Christ to and for the historical moment. If it is close to what God has in mind, then in all likelihood we will be equal opportunity offenders. When people stand up and cheer (well, jeer, actually) during our sermons, we must hesitate and wonder how far from the truth we have wandered. The law of God kills us with the truth of our sin. It doesn't make us stand up and cheer. Only the gospel can do that.
I remember a quote attributed to Ben Franklin about twice as many people showing up for his hanging as for any speech he made. I think about Stephen stoned to death, Paul beaten with rods, the women ridiculed for their Easter witness. When we speak truth to power, that's the kind of response we should expect. Any other response is suspect.
Do we say nothing of political significance then? No, that is the other extreme. There is, however, plenty to say about the politics of Jesus without engaging in the full contact sport of the current campaign. Father Pfleger, don't apologize because you might have offended someone. Confess that you made the cardinal preacher's error, and then learn from that mistake.
The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: Stand in the gate of the LORD’S house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word of the LORD, all you people of Judah, you that enter these gates to worship the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Amend your ways and your doings, and let me dwell with you in this place. Do not trust in these deceptive words: "This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD." (Jeremiah 7:1-4 NRSV) May 28 How Powerful is the Gospel?At Our Saviour's Lutheran Church, we're going to spend summer worship and sermon time studying the Letter to the Romans. Is the good news of Jesus Christ strong enough to overcome the divisions that are so powerful in Creation? That is really the question that haunts Paul. God has promised to give life to the world--to bless the cosmos, in the words of Genesis. Does God keep God's word? Is God "righteous" to use Paul's language? That is the question Paul seeks to wrestle to the ground.
Paul's answer is a resounding "yes." Look at the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the answer. What, however, does that mean for life among Christians? Is that yes big enough, good news enough, to overcome all the bad news of our division, hostility, anxiety, anger and fear? Yes, Paul says, it is. God is faithful, or God ceases to be God. God's gospel is more powerful than any human ideology--even if that ideology underwrites a project as successful as the Roman empire.
The division Paul has in mind is that between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in the Roman churches. The gospel is the power of salvation for everyone who clings to that gospel--Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian alike. It is hard to imagine how big that gulf was at the time. After all, nearly all Christians now are Gentiles. But this was the Grand Canyon of theological and cultural divides at the time. God's gracious gift of trust through Jesus Christ is more than enough good news to overcome this division. Paul pleads with the Roman Christians to be followers of Jesus Christ first and to make all--and he means all--other identities secondary.
This is why experiences of Christian acceptance across such divides are so powerful. When we embrace inmates on the road to productive citizenship and gather at the same communion table with them, we testify to the power of the gospel among us. When we love and support sisters and brothers in New Orleans or Honduras or Tanzania--often people we've never met before--we testify to the power of the gospel among us. When we refuse to create ritual or social or politcal entrance requirements for the church, we testfy to the power of the gospel among us.
The good news of Christ is less a set of doctrines or fundamentals than it is a way of life--openness to the longings, the pains, the hope and dreams of those in need around us. It is the power of God for salvation for all who trust in God the giver of life.
This understanding of the Gospel of Christ has clear political implications. If we read Romans for what it is, what does that say about how we deal with the stranger, the outsider, even the enemy? Modern imperial assumptions will be challenged by such a question. May 27 Updated photosFriends, I've added a few more pictures to the Martha and Wellington album. I'll have more to share later today. So far, this is an incredible blessing for all. And everything in America costs too much, moves too fast, requires too little walking and/or isn't fresh from the garden! May 24 Some interesting sitesAnd here's a site with lots of good material on the new Pauline studies--some of which Wright supports, and some of which he critiques.
It is especially good for us Lutherans to stay in touch with this line of exploration since we have considered Paul and his theology to be our special province for five hundred years. It is possible that we are not entirely correct in that assessment. May 23 After Denominations...Or Not?"...one of the significant factors shaping American mainstream Protestantism at the beginning of the twenty-first century is the diminished power of denominations. Numerically, these are declining in size. They no longer exercise the same influence in business, government, and education. Their members have accepted the ecumenical premise that denominational differences and theological traditions are insignificant. People therefore move freely from one denomination to another. As organizations, denominations are severely affected by the distrust and suspicion between congregations and national church structures. Congregations have become the center of power in every mainstream Protestant denomination." (From "Gleanings: Thoughts and Ideas from CSS Publishing" email update).
Of course there is no news here. However, it is a bit oversimplified. It was in the interest of mainstream American culture in the middle of the last century to have and foster strong Christian mainline denominations. The organizational model came right off the WWII battlefield. After all, most of the people in charge of all institutions in the west shared that experience of command and control hierarchy. That experience was also reflected in western corporate and corporation culture. But that model has outlived its usefulness.
Now it is in the interest of the covert and overt empire to have traditional denominations that are far less influential. One of the functions of larger denominations was to serve as a political and social counterweight to the administrative and partisan dimensions of this culture. As these dimensions accumulate power, traditional denominations find themselves more and more in the adversarial role. We have little practice in that alternative role, and thus we're not very good at it.
In order to maintain some semblance of political power, some parts of the Christian tradition have banded together in new ways and have agreed, overtly or accidentally, to underwrite the imperial theology that continues to develop among us. By and large, those parts of the Christian tradition have an "evangelical" bent to their theology and practice (in fact, I believe they exhibit elements of Gnostic and Modalistic heresy, and I wish someone more influential would say that out loud).
I don't think it is helpful to posit a denomination vs. congregation power polarity. Rather, we are seeing the decline of traditional denominations--which tend not to fully underwrite current cultural and political assumptions--and newer alignments which have gained power to ratifying things as most Americans wish they would be.
It is often only too late that American politicians fully appreciate the theological costs of courting the new alignments. John McCain's experience with Pastor Ted Hagee is only the latest example of such a cost. May 20 Resolution to Protect?I just listened to a fascinating conversation from the "On Point" web site (http://www.onpointradio.org/) concerning intervention in the situation in Burma/Myanmar. While thousands more die, national governments wrestle with the political and diplomatic maze that must be negotiated in order to do any good in the situation. Shall we as the United States, for example, act unilaterally or in concert with France and Great Britain to drop food and other supplies by air to those in need? The members of ASEAN are planning a donor conference a week from now to discuss possible action. Estimates are that thousands will die between now and the conference. How many more will perish before anything really happens?
Intervention, of course, seems less attractive in the post-Iraq environment. We have seen the actions of an empire of the compliant to remove a terrible dictator only to leave a mess in his place. So-called "liberal interventionism" has a mixed record at best (although it is often better than no action at all). We only have to issue a short roll call to see the varied outcomes of such efforts (or non-efforts): Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Ghana, etc. Context and international interests have so much to do with how things might turn out.
In light of such catastrophes in the past, the United Nations has developed a "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) resolution process. The intention is to permit coalitions of compassion to form through the UN to help people whose governments will not protect or provide for them. It seems that an R2P resolution has no traction in the Security Council at this point, since several permanent members might decide to veto such a resolution. There is always the fear that such a precedent might interfere with the internal politics of my country at a later time. In addition, China and India do not wish to have outside intervention in what they perceive as "their" spheres of influence.
How can Christians think about this and respond? I'm much better at questions than at answers. However, it seems to me that a concerted effort to bring about an R2P is a necessary step. In addition, some symbolic delivery of relief supplies through international means might bring nations to the table for more serious conversation and action. It is hard to see how China, for example, could encourage international cooperation in deaing with its own earthquake and then work against that same cooperation in another country.
In addition, church-related agencies are already working in the area with their limited resources. The Burma/Myanmar government is providing only a trickle of visas to such groups and mostly to Asian-based relief workers. We are able, however, to cooperate directly with such NGO's to provide what help we can. But at the end of the day the real money is with governments.
I think I will contact our senators and encourage them to work for an R2P resolution in the UN. I will pray for and continue to support our own relief efforts in the area. And I will ask God to use this situation to encourage the coalition of the compassionate. That is the only real alternative to interventions by empires of the compliant. "Lord, when did we see you hungry, naked, sick, imprisoned...?" We never have to look very far. Where is Reinhold Neibuhr When We Need Him?I want to propose two paradoxical theses regarding Christianity and politics in our time and place. Thesis one: the size, scope and complexity of our world press the United States toward de facto empire. It is clear that if the United States does not assert itself in an imperial fashion on the world stage, then one of two things happens. Chaos results and a variety of sub-governmental organizations using violence as a primary tool seek to influence world events and decisions. Or another power asserts quasi-imperial or imperial power and begins to guide world events in ways that are inimical to American political and economic interests. This thesis is not a new description of world realities. The newness rests in the increased capacity for humans to destroy themselves and the planet we all inhabit. The stakes of empire or the lack thereof are higher than ever in human history. It may be that a quasi-imperial structure for global politics is necessary for the short-term survival of the species and the planetary ecosystem (although thus far, candidates for such an empire have not demonstrated a capacity to enhance the survival of either). Thesis two: those who follow Jesus must resist the theological, and therefore the practical claims, of any empire. Historically empires have made claims to ultimate significance, that is, to divinity. This claim can be veiled in a number of sophisticated ways. It was couched in the conservative family values of Augustan Rome. It may be couched in the notion of a special providence which has called the United States of America into existence and which underwrites that existence at all costs. Every empire, however, in the end claims divine sanction for whatever acts it deems necessary for survival and hegemony. Those who follow Jesus as Lord have always experienced that as a call to resist the theology of empire. This has been (re)discovered in the new studies of Paul and by extension of that study to the gospels. This has been (re)discovered as we seek to reclaim the Christian hope of the book of Revelation from the manic millennialists and insane novelists of the Left Behind series. We who follow Jesus cannot underwrite ultimate claims for anyone or anything other than our Lord and Christ. The nature of the resistance need not be violent, at least at this point in our history. But it cannot be invisible either. If these two theses seem to stand in tension, that's because they do. It could be that an imperial structure is the most likely survival strategy for life in the short run. It is indeed true that Christians would resist the ultimate claims of such a strategy regardless of imperial effectiveness. Welcome back to the first century church! May 14 Partners, Not PawnsOur God seeks partners, not pawns.
It's a terrible old movie now with a cult following--"Clash of the Titans." The film features a young Harry Hamlin, an apple-cheeked Judi Bowker, and Sir Laurence Olivier just past his prime. The movie retells a portion of the Greek Perseus myth.
What I find so interesting for our purposes is the portrayal of the Greek gods. On the one hand, they are distant on Olympus, disconnected from the pain and uncertainty of mortal existence. On the other hand, they are continually involved in various manipulations and machinations that make human life difficult and have no meaning other than to reflect the petty strife among the immortals. The gods are distant meddlers, capricious in their blessings and terrible in their vengeance. Humans are mere pawns in this divine soap opera.
Our Christian testimony to the nature and heart of God is so different. Our God seeks partners, not pawns. In Matthew 28, Jesus tells us that he is "with us always." This fulfills the Immanuel promise of Matthew 1. Jesus speaks the name of the Divine One--"I am." For our God, merely watching and manipulating is not nearly enough. As C. A. Dinsmore said so eloquently, at the heart of the Trinity there stands a cross, a cross that does not crumble when the one on Golgotha is nothing but dust.
We tend to live with the movie image of God. Why does God manipulate my life with suffering and struggle and uncertainty, we ask? This imagination places God far away from our reality. But Christians, who cling to God with us, cannot be satisfied with such a mythology. The God who is Trinity is on a mission for life--abundant life for all of Creation. If God is with us, then God must be with us in our suffering rather than over us and apart from our suffering. After all, we know there is no relationship apart from suffering with one another.
Why would we want another kind of God? We think that perhaps if God can get away without suffering, then we could as well. Of course, the price of such an existence is absolute isolation from all that is. Any relationship at all means there will be pain--at least the pain of living with difference, with another, with the potential for separation. Thus we are reminded already in Genesis that it is not good for us to be alone.
So God's mission is our mission. We are not pawns to be sacrified in some eternal battle. We are partners in the New Creation.
P. S. Weekend messages not available in audio format at www.osllincoln.org. May 13 Get Into What God DoesWe are wandering toward Trinity Sunday, the first Sunday after the Feast of Pentecost. It may be that this is the only festival dedicated to a teaching of the church rather than to an explicit teaching of Jesus. At least that's what most commentators might say. Of course, we have Jesus' triune teaching in the Great Commission of Matthew 28 (we'll read it this weekend). And the work of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, infuses the whole New Testament without ever uttering the word "Trinity."
I've been reminded several times lately that we tend to think about Christianity as something one knows. The New Testament thinks about Christianity as something one does. Would it be helpful to apply that to the Triune God? I think so.
The church doctrine of the Trinity is not some kind of description of God's personal architecture or psychology. Instead, the Trinity is an effort to celebrate this God who is on the mission of abundant life for all of Creation. I can't help but think about the Blues Brothers movie--"we're on a mission from God" (of course, it was pronounced 'Gad' in fine Chicago fashion). Our God is on a mission from God to give forgiveness, life and salvation to a cosmos bound to guilt, death and despair. Trinity is how we can think about this missional God who graciously intervenes, interacts and interrupts to give life and to give it abundantly.
Thus God's mission is to create a cosmos purely of out gracious love. When that cosmos goes terribly wrong, abusing the gift of Divine freedom, our God redeems us by becoming one of us in a specific and concrete way. To sustain that gift of new life, our God remains in us, through us and with us, by filling us with the Life of the Spirit. This is what we see. This is what we point to. This is what we know of the Trinity.
So this doctrine is not some dry speculation about the "nature of the Divine." Trinity is the report of our experience of the Missional God who will never abandon us to our own devices.
So we are invited to get into what God does rather than into what God is. That's a good, faithful application of the First Commandment. And if it's good enough for God...well, what happens if we worry less about Christianity as a way of thinking and worry more about Christianity as a way of living? We can have all sorts of fun with doctrinal speculation and difference. That doctrinal meditation shapes and forms who we are and what we do. But it is a means rather than an end. Following Jesus is as simple as loving God with whole heart, soul, mind and strength, and our neighbors as ourselves.
As Jesus would say, "Do this, and you shall live." May 07 Beyond and Bigger and More"If there is a divine being who made everything, including us, what would our experiences with this being look like? The moment God is figured out with nice neat lines and definitions, we are no longer dealing with God. We are dealing with somebody we made up. And if we made him up, then we are in control. And so in passage after passage, we find God reminding people that he is beyond and bigger and more." (Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, page 025).
Of course, Bell is correct about this. This is nothing more and nothing less than the First Commandment in action. On the other hand, this makes all theologizing relative, limited, finite. Yes, that's true as well. It does, however, rule out human certainty about the things of God. Let's be clear. This is not postmodern deconstructionist gibberish. This is an essential corollary of the First Commandment. Our theologizing can, by itself, only produce idols. Human certainty is the first and last of such idols.
Douglas John Hall reminds us of the two broad theological responses to this conundrum. One response is apologetic theology. God has implanted something in us that makes us "addressable." Thus God can connect our longing for God with the real thing instead of with idols. In fact, this is the approach that Bell takes in his writing and work. Bell's church is called, after all, Mars Hill, for the experience of the gospel in Acts 17. Paul points to the pagan idols and says, "Oh, so close!"
The other approach is kerygmatic theology. This lends itself, for example, to the Acts 2 text for Pentecost. No, we are not really "addressable." Instead, God's Word comes to us where we are, overwhelms the barriers that separate us from God, and gives to us the Truth--albeit in languages we can understand. In this perspective other religions, for example, have nothing to add to the conversation. Such perspectives can only be idolatry.
In either case, the question remains. All our theologizing is relativized by the First Commandment. We must exercise immense caution and humility in our discourse about and with God, due to that reality. If we are addressable, that capacity is deeply tainted by sin. If we are overwhelmed by grace, one wonders how we can make room for such a foreign body. What a marvelous notion, that we are called into a struggle which must in some sense founder against the rocks of our own finitude. As Gerhard Frost once asked, why does our capacity to ask questions exceed our ability to receive answers? Of course, if that were not true, then we would be God. May 06 One More Super TuesdayOne more time, voters go to the polls to select a Democratic presidential nominee. It's a contrast to the lessons for Pentecost Sunday.
We certainly live in a time where divide and conquer is the order of the day. Political operatives have elevated this to a winning strategy. Appeal to the extremes and the common sense middle can go to…well, you know where. Winner take all politics seems to work better, at least during this primary season. Losers can go home. Polls seek to divide us into smaller and smaller marketing segments, interests groups and power centers. Personal preference rules the day, and anything approaching the common good is regarded as impractical. I wish I were just cynical rather than accurate.
Such an approach to our life together is clearly not good enough for the church.
But isn’t it amazing that this community--at least in how we are called to live--will not overwhelm the individual? This is not collectivism. This is not obliteration of the one by the many. In the midst of the whole, the Gospel speaks to me. In our own languages we hear the witness of the faith speaking about God’s deeds of power.
For example, Luther often reminded us of the two words that are most important in the supper. Those words are “for you.” Most of the time, the “you” in Scripture is plural. But when we come to the supper, that “you” is singular and plural--all at the same time (oh, how we Lutherans love a good paradox). Christ’s body and blood are for you, for me, and for us all.
It is that eucharistic reality that should form and guide our community. We are embedded in the community of faith. But that community dare not impose violence on us in order to gain assent. The Spirit works the unity (really the re-unity) that God longs for among us, within us, and through us. For that reason, the first gift of the Holy Spirit--the one that Jesus gives his disciples--is forgiveness.
Perhaps that is where we should take it up tomorrow (or the next day--who knows?). What is this forgiveness the Spirit demands of us? May 05 Our next internIn the blog photos, you can see a picture of the next pastoral intern at OSLC, Ben Larson. You can also see a picture of Ben and his spouse, Renee. Renee will serve as the pastoral intern at the Lutheran Student Center at UNL. Still praying, but I found that "e" on "message"Our prayer of the day for Pentecost includes these words: "Direct us by the light of that Spirit, that we may have a right judgment in all things and rejoice at all times in your peace..." I find this to be a marvelous and humbling set of phrases. To think that "right judgment" is in fact a gift of the Spirit and something for which we can pray. On the one hand, this relativizes all I know and all I decide. This is a reality that Christians after the Enlightenment so easily forget. It is not only my choices that fall under the bondage of sin and need to be freed by God's grace in Christ. What I know, even in scientific and empirical terms--what I know is tainted and twisted by the distorting and disordering power of sin.
This is not a concession to some sort of pietistic agnosticism ("I really don't know anything, so I'll just let God take care of it all"). That would be too simple and far too irresponsible. Instead, this is a profound warning to take ourselves and our knowledge with a combination of seriousness and humility--a combination almost completely lacking in most contemporary discourse. In fact, to express some humility about what one knows is a sure ticket to the accusation that one is intellectually soft or unwilling to make the "hard choices." If our recent history has taught us anything, it is that some humility in the face of what we think is knowledge could save us a lot of trouble.
On the other hand, this is a confident prayer that the Holy Spirit in fact can give us right judgment if we are open to that Influence. I am unwilling to limit the Spirit's actions to "churchy" sorts of contexts. How often has a person said something like, "I don't know where it came from, but I just knew what I had to do." How often does that sense come in times when the action contemplated is against that person's self-interest or even puts that person in danger for the sake of another? It is the Divine Spirit--the Spirit that rests upon Jesus Christ--that moves across the cosmos with God's self-giving love to bring abundant life to all--sometimes through us, and sometimes in spite of us.
I am so glad that this prayer is spoken as a community. If Pentecost says anything, it says that this is where the Spirit can work best if we will allow that to happen. The Wind of God blows through the Church to speak the good news of Abundant Life for all. We are given to one another as instruments through which that Wind can blow. The Spirit works best when we play as an orchestra and not as soloists in our judgments and our desire for God's peace.
Of course, we are people of flesh and people of faith. Thus we almost always end up making judgments based on less than full information. But that is a subject for another day...
LRH Praying toward a messagSo, Pentecost and Mother's Day land on the same Sunday. Well, perhaps we can talk about that this week. However, I am taken by a verse for the upcoming Pentecost day. The verse is in our second reading from 1 Corinthians 12. Verse seven says, "To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good." I was struck by the last two words. I would have expected a Greek phrase with some form of koinos in it--the root for "koinonia" (as in fellowship). That is not the case, however,
The word is a form of sumphero. "Sum" (as in soom) is that lovely prefix that means "together with." So symphony is "voicing together with." Sympathy is "suffering together with." Sumphero is "bearing together with." Now, that opens things up a bit. While we are stuck with that overused English phrase, the common good, all we will do is argue theory. Just do a web search on the phrase and you will find many learned papers on the topic. Arguments will commence about the nature of the good. Arguments will continue about the meaning of common. And in the meantime, no action of any consequence will take place.
In fact, the discussion of the "common good" is mostly a veiled argument about individual rights. How will I get what I have coming to me within the overall scheme of things? How can my enlightened self-interest, or the much rawer version, be tempered and harnessed in such a way that life does not degenerate into a war of all against all? That is the nature of politcal discourse in a liberal democracy. At the end of the day, we are all protecting our own rights--but seeking to do so in such a way that we are neither thrown into jail nor beaten to a pulp by an angry neighbor.
It is fair to say that this is not at all what Paul has in mind in 1 Corinthians 12. Instead, he says we have the gifts of the Spirit for the purpose of bearing with (pros to sumpheros for those who are interested). This is a different political and social universe. Imagine someone carrying three big sacks of groceries from the car to the house. One of the sacks is about to hit the ground. In a flash you are there to grab one or more of the bags. You do not ask for a reward. You do not keep the bag you saved. You were there. You had the ability. You were made for bearing with.
I think this carries tremendous theological weight in the Pauline tradition. In Ephesians 2, the writer tells us we are justified by grace through faith. That is, however, not an end in itself. Instead, this is done so that we can carry out the good works for which we were created in the first place. We are hard-wired for bearing together with. If God is in charge of our life and salvation, we can focus on this created purpose. So bearing together with is the most profound expression of trust in the grace of God in Christ.
This is one of the reasons why such unselfish behavior matters to the follower of Jesus. It is good for all of us. Bearing together with is a foundational reflection of our nature. To do otherwise is to be a foolish idolator. To make decisions on any other basis--especially in church--is a profound exercise in bad faith.
Yet, how rarely to we make our choices based on bearing together with...
LRH May 02 Everybody Believes in Something (?)Rob Bell writes in Velvet Elvis:
"An atheist is a person of tremendous faith. In our discussions about the things that matter most then, we aren't talking about faith or no faith. Belief or no belief. We are talking about faith in what? Belief in what? The real question isn't whether we have it nor not, but what we have put it in." (page 019)
So every perspective is a faith perspective. As Bell continues, "Everybody follows somebody...We are all believers." (page 020) For the modern thinker this begs the question. How does one distinguish between, decide among the various faiht options (including atheism)? What objective criteria might one use to make such a decision? The postmodern thinker and believer would say, Wrong question! The "objective" perspective doesn't exist. There is only the human perspective.
On the one hand, the postmodern perspective can be regarded as a profound sign of respect for the First Commandment. No one gets a "God's-eye view" of the cosmos, except for God. On the other hand, such a perspective can simply make truth into organized violence. Whoever has the loudest voice (and the biggest gun) gets to decree what the truth is. That is, of course, the general deconstructionist approach to truth as an exercise in raw power. That option--while it has been exercised by Christians in the past--is never a proper Christian approach to asserting the truth we hold dear.
The postmodern question, we are told, is not, "Is it true?" Rather the question, we are told, is, "Does it work?" That is a quite different question. The answer can only be lived out.
So, does everybody believe in something, or someone? |
|
|
