As I write this, Wall Street is taking a beating on the news that the House did not pass the $700 billion bail out. Ask me about what I'm about to write if the stock market crashes and we enter a Greater Depression, but right now I'm wondering if this might not be a good thing for America. What if we had to learn that choices have consequences, and even unintended consequences? What if we had to learn that sometimes your choice's consequences affect not only you, but people you don't even know and certainly didn't consider when you made your choice? What if we had to learn that there is no promise in God's Word anywhere that America's economy will always grow by a certain percentage a year, if at all? What if we had to learn that buying more and bigger never really satisfies? What if we had to learn that our consumption is not only conspicuous, but also concupiscent? What if we had to learn that money is a great tool, but a very bad goal? What if we had to learn that God isn't very impressed by our GNP? What if we had to learn that if we have food and clothes, with these we can be content?
Just wondering...
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Who's Your Daddy?
Sharon and I are thoroughly enjoying our 10 week class, "In Pursuit of Jesus." We are team teaching the class and, this won't be a surprise to most of you who read this blog, we are using music and video and interactive experiences to help the students see the life of Jesus more clearly.
Yesterday we were talking about Jesus' parables and how he used stories that made sense to the first hearers. One of the participants made our point for us when he pointed out his own failure to "get" the Parable of the Lost Coins until he understood that each coin is a day's wage. We used his confession to make the point that while the parables are great (and inspired), we need to translate those stories into stories that make sense to our contemporaries, even as Jesus did with his. We then showed a 2 minute clip from "Remember the Titans" in which the lead character, a football coach (played by Denzel Washington) newly arrived at a high school, is being confronted by one of his football players who begins demanding spots on the team for his friends. The player's leverage, he thinks, is that he is the "only all-American you've got." The coach then proceeds to firmly put the player in his place. The coach tells the player to say goodbye to his mother because when he gets on the bus to go to training camp he will only have his "brothers on the team and your Daddy." Then he asks the question, "Who's your Daddy?"
We then assigned the four groups in our class to decide how that scene illustrates truth about God or about what it means to belong to God's family. After a few brief moments of panic, the groups began to brainstorm and then we could hardly get them to stop.
And even better, in the long run, than what they recognized about God and His family in that one brief clip was the "ah ha" moment of seeing how the truths God has revealed about Himself and his family can be translated into the stories of music, movies and their own lives as they seek to communicate God to their friends. Jesus often said, "The kingdom of heaven is like..." Jesus did not just keep saying the same thing about God in hopes that if he said it often enough, they'd finally understand. Instead he sought ways to connect what people did NOT understand about God and His family with things that they DID understand. It is not unusual, in the Gospel accounts, for him to tell two or three stories in the same conversation to try to come at the truth from different angles. His desire and goal was that his contemporaries would finally connect the dots. We have that same privilege. And if we pay attention to our own stories and the stories of those around us and the stories woven throughout our popular culture, we might be able to connect our friends to the One whose story matters most.
Yesterday we were talking about Jesus' parables and how he used stories that made sense to the first hearers. One of the participants made our point for us when he pointed out his own failure to "get" the Parable of the Lost Coins until he understood that each coin is a day's wage. We used his confession to make the point that while the parables are great (and inspired), we need to translate those stories into stories that make sense to our contemporaries, even as Jesus did with his. We then showed a 2 minute clip from "Remember the Titans" in which the lead character, a football coach (played by Denzel Washington) newly arrived at a high school, is being confronted by one of his football players who begins demanding spots on the team for his friends. The player's leverage, he thinks, is that he is the "only all-American you've got." The coach then proceeds to firmly put the player in his place. The coach tells the player to say goodbye to his mother because when he gets on the bus to go to training camp he will only have his "brothers on the team and your Daddy." Then he asks the question, "Who's your Daddy?"
We then assigned the four groups in our class to decide how that scene illustrates truth about God or about what it means to belong to God's family. After a few brief moments of panic, the groups began to brainstorm and then we could hardly get them to stop.
And even better, in the long run, than what they recognized about God and His family in that one brief clip was the "ah ha" moment of seeing how the truths God has revealed about Himself and his family can be translated into the stories of music, movies and their own lives as they seek to communicate God to their friends. Jesus often said, "The kingdom of heaven is like..." Jesus did not just keep saying the same thing about God in hopes that if he said it often enough, they'd finally understand. Instead he sought ways to connect what people did NOT understand about God and His family with things that they DID understand. It is not unusual, in the Gospel accounts, for him to tell two or three stories in the same conversation to try to come at the truth from different angles. His desire and goal was that his contemporaries would finally connect the dots. We have that same privilege. And if we pay attention to our own stories and the stories of those around us and the stories woven throughout our popular culture, we might be able to connect our friends to the One whose story matters most.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Genuine Replacement Parts
It was during a conversation this afternoon that I was reminded of one of those profoundly simply, yet potentially life-changing ideas. We were talking about the transformation that God desires for His children when we respond to the gospel. Since we are new creations in Christ, our lives should change.
The person seated just two chairs to my right said, "I think much of the problem is that we see spiritual growth as addition when, in most cases it is replacement." I think part of what caught me was that my mind had already raced ahead to finish his sentence with a fitting metaphor. That is, my mind figured he was going to continue the math idea. (subtraction) I think that (and the work of the Holy Spirit) is why I heard him so distinctly. I'm still chewing on this, but I realized when he said it that that is exactly how I look at growth in my spiritual life. "What do I need to add?" More Bible reading, more praying, more witnessing, more ... By simply adding, I can, in theory, keep what I already have. I just add to it.
Maybe its me, but I think I find it easier to add than to replace. In other words, there is a part of me that finds satisfaction, dare I say pride, in adding to what I do. Replacement means I have to first die to something. I have to give it up. I have to surrender. Then I can replace it with what God had in mind. In adding, I don't have to subtract first. In replacing, I do.
There is certainly a place for adding. In his second letter, Peter tells his readers to add to their faith certain characteristics. But the most common theme is that of dying to the old way of doing things and only then, adding. This is the imagery of "putting off and putting on." Subtracting before you add. God's new math.
The person seated just two chairs to my right said, "I think much of the problem is that we see spiritual growth as addition when, in most cases it is replacement." I think part of what caught me was that my mind had already raced ahead to finish his sentence with a fitting metaphor. That is, my mind figured he was going to continue the math idea. (subtraction) I think that (and the work of the Holy Spirit) is why I heard him so distinctly. I'm still chewing on this, but I realized when he said it that that is exactly how I look at growth in my spiritual life. "What do I need to add?" More Bible reading, more praying, more witnessing, more ... By simply adding, I can, in theory, keep what I already have. I just add to it.
Maybe its me, but I think I find it easier to add than to replace. In other words, there is a part of me that finds satisfaction, dare I say pride, in adding to what I do. Replacement means I have to first die to something. I have to give it up. I have to surrender. Then I can replace it with what God had in mind. In adding, I don't have to subtract first. In replacing, I do.
There is certainly a place for adding. In his second letter, Peter tells his readers to add to their faith certain characteristics. But the most common theme is that of dying to the old way of doing things and only then, adding. This is the imagery of "putting off and putting on." Subtracting before you add. God's new math.
Monday, September 08, 2008
The Sound of Friendship
Last week I heard the sound of friendship. It sounded like "Schwing, Schwing." When I turned my back for just a moment, my daughter, Kristi, turned 30. That isn't what made the "schwing, schwing" sound. It was her friend in Malaysia who took the time to write a song about Kristi's hair. That's right. About her hair. Her friend not only took the time to write a song about her hair, she then memorized it, practiced it, videoed it and then uploaded it to YouTube. After all that it was played at Kristi's birthday party in Germany where a group of about 70 had gathered to celebrate this milestone by having a talent/no talent show (ala Dan in Real Life). Kristi's friend insists that "schwing, schwing" is the sound Kristi's hair makes when it's tossed, but I know it's the sound of friendship. Friendship expressed by gift of time. Time given as a gift to a friend. Time to create something that, unless it goes viral on the Internet, will probably fade into history (although I must say that Sharon and I find ourselves singing the chorus throughout the day and probably will for years).
Isn't that the extravagance of friendship? In the classic book, The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupery, the fox points out that "It is the time you have wasted for your rose that makes your rose so important." How little we know of "wasting" time for our friends. Unlike Mary who "wasted" the perfume on Jesus, we miss myriads of opportunities to "waste" time, money and even very clever, cheesy songs, on our friends. No, "schwing, schwing" is not just the sound of Kristi's hair. It's the sound of friendship.
Isn't that the extravagance of friendship? In the classic book, The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupery, the fox points out that "It is the time you have wasted for your rose that makes your rose so important." How little we know of "wasting" time for our friends. Unlike Mary who "wasted" the perfume on Jesus, we miss myriads of opportunities to "waste" time, money and even very clever, cheesy songs, on our friends. No, "schwing, schwing" is not just the sound of Kristi's hair. It's the sound of friendship.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Highway to Heaven
WhitemoonG makes good points in responding to Love Shack. It reminds me of my argument back in the 80's that it was more dangerous, spiritually, for Americans to watch Highway to Heaven than Hill Street Blues. Highway to Heaven subtly communicated that all one needed to do was be good or become better than you are and you'd be in with God. It denied, at its core, the doctrine of sin. That we all have fallen, and continue to fall, short of God's glory. Hill Street Blues, on the other hand, spoke clearly of mankind's fallenness and while it didn't offer any solutions to the problem, at least it held the mirror up to mankind and declared, "The emperor has no clothes." G.K. Chesterton wrote that sin is the only empirically verifiable point of Christian doctrine, yet Highway to Heaven said that while we may sin, we can just clean up our acts a bit, treat each other a bit better and that would get us to heaven. (This argument about Highway to Heaven and Hill Street Blues may also, in all honesty, have been a way to justify watching Hill Street Blues.)
We must always be discerning. LifeWay Books, a Baptist book distributor, has put a "Read with discernment" label on The Shack in their bookstores. Shouldn't they put that on the Joel Osteen, John MacArthur, John Piper and Brock and Bodie Thoene books, too? I agree with my friend that we have drifted, in our churches and in our own study, into "What does it mean to me?" instead of "What does it mean?" It is a mantra (can I say that?) of mine in any Bible Study I'm in. I don't really care what it means to you unless I first know you understand what it means.
Having said all this, I still think the book should be read because it forces us to ask again, "What does God say about himself?" I get tired of Americans who say, "My God would never..." Again, I'm not interested in what your God would or wouldn't do or say. I'm interested in what the God who is there and is not silent has said and done. I would be disappointed if people read The Shack and are too lazy to compare the inspired, inerrant self-description of God with that given in this novel. But then, this is the culture that paces in front of the microwave and takes their news in 60 second segments. So, unfortunately, WhitemoonG's concern for the non-discerning reader is right on the money. That is, far too many will read the book, take it as a 100% accurate portrayal of God and live out of that worldview rather than comparing the imagery with Scripture, adopting what resonates with revealed truth, and living out of that worldview.
We must always be discerning. LifeWay Books, a Baptist book distributor, has put a "Read with discernment" label on The Shack in their bookstores. Shouldn't they put that on the Joel Osteen, John MacArthur, John Piper and Brock and Bodie Thoene books, too? I agree with my friend that we have drifted, in our churches and in our own study, into "What does it mean to me?" instead of "What does it mean?" It is a mantra (can I say that?) of mine in any Bible Study I'm in. I don't really care what it means to you unless I first know you understand what it means.
Having said all this, I still think the book should be read because it forces us to ask again, "What does God say about himself?" I get tired of Americans who say, "My God would never..." Again, I'm not interested in what your God would or wouldn't do or say. I'm interested in what the God who is there and is not silent has said and done. I would be disappointed if people read The Shack and are too lazy to compare the inspired, inerrant self-description of God with that given in this novel. But then, this is the culture that paces in front of the microwave and takes their news in 60 second segments. So, unfortunately, WhitemoonG's concern for the non-discerning reader is right on the money. That is, far too many will read the book, take it as a 100% accurate portrayal of God and live out of that worldview rather than comparing the imagery with Scripture, adopting what resonates with revealed truth, and living out of that worldview.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Getting More and Doing More
In his book, Subversive Spirituality, Eugene Peterson writes, "Our culture has failed precisely because it is a secular culture. A secular culture is a culture reduced to thing and function. Typically, at the outset, people are delighted to find themselves living in such a culture. It is wonderful to have all these things coming our way, without having to worry about their nature or purpose. And it is wonderful to have this incredible freedom to do so much, without bothering about relationships or meaning. But after a few years of this, our delight diminishes as we find ourselves lonely among the things and bored with our freedom.
"Our first response is to get more of what brought us delight in the first place: acquire more things, generate more activity. Get more. Do more. After a few years of this, we are genuinely puzzled that we are not any better.
"We North Americans have been doing this for well over a century now, and we have succeeded in producing a culture that is reduced to thing and function. And we all seem to be surprised that this magnificent achievement of secularism--all these things! all these activities!-- has produced an epidemic of loneliness and boredom....
"And then, one by one, a few people begin to realize that getting more and doing more only makes the sickness worse...
"People begin to see that secularism marginalizes and eventually obliterates the two essentials of human fullness: intimacy and transcendence. Intimacy: we want to experience human love and trust and joy. Transcendence: we want to experience divine love and trust and joy. We are not ourselves by ourselves... Instead, we long for a human touch, for someone who knows our name. We hunger for divine meaning, someone who will bless us."
Maybe its middle age. Maybe its more than 30 years in ministry. But I'm even more committed to investing in intimacy and transcendence rather than getting more and doing more. I've seen what the sickness does to us, both in my own life and the lives of those with whom I have relationship. Anyone care to join me?
"Our first response is to get more of what brought us delight in the first place: acquire more things, generate more activity. Get more. Do more. After a few years of this, we are genuinely puzzled that we are not any better.
"We North Americans have been doing this for well over a century now, and we have succeeded in producing a culture that is reduced to thing and function. And we all seem to be surprised that this magnificent achievement of secularism--all these things! all these activities!-- has produced an epidemic of loneliness and boredom....
"And then, one by one, a few people begin to realize that getting more and doing more only makes the sickness worse...
"People begin to see that secularism marginalizes and eventually obliterates the two essentials of human fullness: intimacy and transcendence. Intimacy: we want to experience human love and trust and joy. Transcendence: we want to experience divine love and trust and joy. We are not ourselves by ourselves... Instead, we long for a human touch, for someone who knows our name. We hunger for divine meaning, someone who will bless us."
Maybe its middle age. Maybe its more than 30 years in ministry. But I'm even more committed to investing in intimacy and transcendence rather than getting more and doing more. I've seen what the sickness does to us, both in my own life and the lives of those with whom I have relationship. Anyone care to join me?
Monday, September 01, 2008
Love Shack
One of my friends wrote me an e-mail today saying they had read The Shack, by William P. Young twice now and wondered if a) I had read it and b) if so, what did I think. I'm going to answer by way of this blog because this is not the first time I've been asked over the past 6 months. The answer to my friend's first question is, "Yes." I first read it about 6 months ago on the recommendation of my daughter, Kristi, who had read it and wanted me to read it so we could dialogue on it. Which we have.
The answer to the second question is, "I thoroughly enjoyed this book." (The title of this blog is a bit misleading, I admit, but I couldn't pass up the chance to get your attention. I didn't love it, but I liked it a lot. But, "Liked It A Lot Shack" didn't have the same ring to it.) There are several reasons for my enjoyment of the book. First, as my friend alluded to in her e-mail, it causes you to think. I found myself repeatedly lowering the book, then sitting there muttering, "Hmmmm. Never thought of it that way before." I love when books do that. They can do that by saying things that I agree with or by saying things I disagree with. Much in the book I agree with, and some things I disagree with. But in both cases, it has caused me to stop taking my perspective on God for granted. It has taken me back to an even better book, The Bible (maybe you've heard of it?).
Second, the imagery the author uses to attempt to describe the relationship between the three members of the Godhead is so much better (and biblical) than the hackneyed images of an egg (shell, white, yolk) or a three-strand rope or water/steam/ice. It is more personal, more relational and more true to how Scripture describes the relation and inter-relation among the Trinity. Frankly, there's not an overabundance of Trinity verses, so we're working with slim material to begin with. But Young's treatment is certainly more in keeping with the images in Scripture than the impersonal analogies used in systematic theology books.
Third, I love the author's choice to have the God character say that while He has no favorites, He is "especially fond of you." As I have told my friends at SMCC repeatedly over the years, God's most personal name, YHWH, carries the connotation of "I will be to you all that I am." God is withholding nothing of Himself from us.
Finally, a couple of observations directed to those who have railed against the book. First, it is a NOVEL. By the very definition it is a work of fiction. It does not claim to speak absolute truth on all issues. Had it been marketed as a "real life adventure" I'd have far more concern about those areas where I disagree with him. But he doesn't claim the events, or anything like them, happened. He creates a story that pretty much forces the reader to think, once again, about life, death, justice, evil, and eternity. That's not a bad thing. And my guess is that because the fiction is grounded in a Christian worldview, people who read it are more likely to "read more about it", as Reading Rainbow always suggested, in the Bible than in Deepak Chopra.
Second, the author does come dangerously close, in my opinion, to a Christian universalism, but he steps back from the ledge and makes clear that salvation is found in Christ alone. Like many movies, I would have loved some editorial authority in a few places, but overall it points us to God's love for each person and it attempts an answer to the age-old question of theodicy. That is, why is there evil if there is a good God? (The author, in my opinion is better at raising and illustrating the question than providing a fully satisfying answer. But then I'm not sure there is a completely satisfying answer (from our limited, human perspective) even if there is an answer. The reason the question keeps getting asked is that bad things continue to happen to people we know and love and we are forced to square that with what we know of God's character. It is like my position on divorce. I know what it is and how to apply it until it is happening to people I know and love. Then, without changing my position, I am forced to look at the issues once again. I appreciate that about the author's attempt. He frames the question in a context that allows most readers to feel the main character's pain and his responses without it feeling contrived.)
I plan to read The Shack again, just in case I missed some blatant heresy along the way. But having looked at some of the anti-Shack websites, I can tell you I didn't see what they saw. But I'll go back and double check. I'd hate to have my 13 readers led astray by my musings. After all, I'm especially fond of you.
The answer to the second question is, "I thoroughly enjoyed this book." (The title of this blog is a bit misleading, I admit, but I couldn't pass up the chance to get your attention. I didn't love it, but I liked it a lot. But, "Liked It A Lot Shack" didn't have the same ring to it.) There are several reasons for my enjoyment of the book. First, as my friend alluded to in her e-mail, it causes you to think. I found myself repeatedly lowering the book, then sitting there muttering, "Hmmmm. Never thought of it that way before." I love when books do that. They can do that by saying things that I agree with or by saying things I disagree with. Much in the book I agree with, and some things I disagree with. But in both cases, it has caused me to stop taking my perspective on God for granted. It has taken me back to an even better book, The Bible (maybe you've heard of it?).
Second, the imagery the author uses to attempt to describe the relationship between the three members of the Godhead is so much better (and biblical) than the hackneyed images of an egg (shell, white, yolk) or a three-strand rope or water/steam/ice. It is more personal, more relational and more true to how Scripture describes the relation and inter-relation among the Trinity. Frankly, there's not an overabundance of Trinity verses, so we're working with slim material to begin with. But Young's treatment is certainly more in keeping with the images in Scripture than the impersonal analogies used in systematic theology books.
Third, I love the author's choice to have the God character say that while He has no favorites, He is "especially fond of you." As I have told my friends at SMCC repeatedly over the years, God's most personal name, YHWH, carries the connotation of "I will be to you all that I am." God is withholding nothing of Himself from us.
Finally, a couple of observations directed to those who have railed against the book. First, it is a NOVEL. By the very definition it is a work of fiction. It does not claim to speak absolute truth on all issues. Had it been marketed as a "real life adventure" I'd have far more concern about those areas where I disagree with him. But he doesn't claim the events, or anything like them, happened. He creates a story that pretty much forces the reader to think, once again, about life, death, justice, evil, and eternity. That's not a bad thing. And my guess is that because the fiction is grounded in a Christian worldview, people who read it are more likely to "read more about it", as Reading Rainbow always suggested, in the Bible than in Deepak Chopra.
Second, the author does come dangerously close, in my opinion, to a Christian universalism, but he steps back from the ledge and makes clear that salvation is found in Christ alone. Like many movies, I would have loved some editorial authority in a few places, but overall it points us to God's love for each person and it attempts an answer to the age-old question of theodicy. That is, why is there evil if there is a good God? (The author, in my opinion is better at raising and illustrating the question than providing a fully satisfying answer. But then I'm not sure there is a completely satisfying answer (from our limited, human perspective) even if there is an answer. The reason the question keeps getting asked is that bad things continue to happen to people we know and love and we are forced to square that with what we know of God's character. It is like my position on divorce. I know what it is and how to apply it until it is happening to people I know and love. Then, without changing my position, I am forced to look at the issues once again. I appreciate that about the author's attempt. He frames the question in a context that allows most readers to feel the main character's pain and his responses without it feeling contrived.)
I plan to read The Shack again, just in case I missed some blatant heresy along the way. But having looked at some of the anti-Shack websites, I can tell you I didn't see what they saw. But I'll go back and double check. I'd hate to have my 13 readers led astray by my musings. After all, I'm especially fond of you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)