A year ago, we had just got home from a long day at the hospital in Santa Barbara, and we got a call that we needed to come back. She was on the verge. I was exhausted from commuting an hour each way to school, then an hour each way to the hospital--in different directions. Dad was too shaken up do drive, and it was too dark for him to see. So Kat drove us. Grandma stayed home; I think it was all she could do just to exist after everything she'd been through. And now this.
We piled in the Neon my Grandma had bought (she had given it to me; that is, my parents bought it from her for about $100) and made the familiar trip down the coast, but this time it was to say goodbye. Dad wanted the back seat. He was emotional, but not too much, yet. I was staring in the side mirror from the passenger's seat, stuck somewhere between empty exhaustion and welled up with tears. Kat drove well. I could never thank her enough for what she willingly went through. We listened to Graceland on the drive.
We spent the night in and out of her room in the ICU. I played music I had been working on for her from my IPhone. We told her about how things were at home. There were close calls and small signs of hope. At one point late in the night, the chaplain came in and prayed for her when we knew she was slipping away. That was so hard. I remember thinking that I could never cry enough for what was happening to her. We ended up sleeping the early morning hours away in a waiting room. Finally, we went in, and we had to make a choice.
It was unclear what Mom wanted. We didn't know what to do. We wanted to give her a chance to fight back, but her body was failing. We talked, we prayed. It fell on Dad's head. He walks every day with that decision. We wept bitterly and said goodbye as they disconnected the respirator. All I could think of was regret. I think I said, "I'm sorry. We love you. We'll see you again." At that moment, I kept thinking about a specific time I knew I disappointed her. Dad and Kat were crying. We watched her body loose its last breath. It didn't take long. The doctor leaned over with his stethoscope: "I'm sorry."
We cried our final tears and left so they could clean her up. I remember feeling very hungry. I was craving a cheeseburger. We went down to the hospital cafeteria, but we decided it was better to head home. We ended up stopping at an IHOP. Kat got pancakes. Dad got onion rings. I don't remember what I ate. But that didn't matter. There we were: me with my fiance and my dad who just had to watch his wife die two hours earlier. But those distinctions didn't matter that morning. We were just family; worse for the wear, and empty from loss.
A few days later, two of my sisters--her daughters--flew in to see her body, say goodbye, and spend some time with us. They were a blessing. We let them go in first. They're both in medical fields, but I'm sure that didn't change a thing. When I was in there, I felt faithless. I wanted so badly to take her hand and say "get up!" But another part of me questioned why I would want to bring her back in to this world. A smaller part feared what she would think of the decision we had made.
We left. She was cremated. Her ashes are on the mantle at Grandma's in a wooden box with a hand-carved scene on it. Dad still lives there. He tells me on the phone how hard it is to look out into that room and see her there. I'm half a country away, married with a dog and working full time.
It's been a year. On the anniversary, I listened to Graceland while I was driving to work and driving between guitar lessons. My eyes were stinging the whole time. I was exhausted at the end of the day. That's the thing about this kind of loss; sometimes it's historical fact, sometimes it's as fresh as the moment after it happened. It hurts, but she's worth the pain of remembering.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
On Education
From what I've seen, there's been a shift in our national opinion about education. It used to be that some kids didn't graduate High School, some did, some got Associates Degrees, others went to trade school or technical school, some graduated college, some got a Master's Degree and a few got Doctorates. All of them had a place in the workforce. Now, it seems that graduating college (that is, earning a four-year degree) holds the same merit as graduating High School did one or two generations ago. No college means no job security (not in all cases, but more than before to be sure).
Why the shift? Education has been subsidized more by government to raise our national level of education that we might compete more on an international scale. In order to stay on top, we need to be smarter. One problem is that as education becomes more available, its value diminishes (as stated earlier). Another problem that we assume education will make us smarter.
My dad is from the "old school." One of the terms he uses with increasing frequency is "educated idiot." What he means is that even though college students are becoming more cosmopolitan reading Wollstonecraft and Marx, they have no idea of the practical implications of such work. They can ace a test, but they're not smart enough to keep a budget and live within (or God forbid, under) their means. In short, college students don't learn common sense.
As our education level rises, the number of manual labor jobs done by Americans decreases (hence the argument about "jobs Americans just won't do"). As education becomes more available, it comes closer to becoming a "right" and is viewed less and less as the privilege that it is. Finally, the motivation to self-educate is diminished when someone can just "take a class." The result is a state-run education system that holds the keys to knowledge and taxes the people more and more as the burden to educate increases. Because education will have become an official right rather than a privilege, it will be a program that the government cannot cut when economic times go lean. Because [nearly] everyone will be educated, either the country will rely on foreign production (again, "jobs Americans just won't do") or else the head janitor at the university will have to have at least a Master's degree to hold the position.
Hyperbole aside, this is a possibility we face: as education becomes more available, its value diminishes. That means students will spend more time in school to be competitive in the job market. The more time a student spends in school, the less time he or she spends working and accumulating wealth. Less time at work and less wealth accumulation means a lower GDP and lower tax revenues. A lower GDP means being less competitive in the "global market," and lower tax revenues means either cutting programs (yeah, right), or increasing state and national debt. As state and national debt increase, taxes go up. As taxes increase, wealth accumulation decreases further until one generation can't afford to educate the next. What's left is an uneducated generation that has to either leave the country to find work, lower their standards for quality of life and quality of work, or rebuild the system from the ground up.
At some point, the system either changes or collapses.
Why the shift? Education has been subsidized more by government to raise our national level of education that we might compete more on an international scale. In order to stay on top, we need to be smarter. One problem is that as education becomes more available, its value diminishes (as stated earlier). Another problem that we assume education will make us smarter.
My dad is from the "old school." One of the terms he uses with increasing frequency is "educated idiot." What he means is that even though college students are becoming more cosmopolitan reading Wollstonecraft and Marx, they have no idea of the practical implications of such work. They can ace a test, but they're not smart enough to keep a budget and live within (or God forbid, under) their means. In short, college students don't learn common sense.
As our education level rises, the number of manual labor jobs done by Americans decreases (hence the argument about "jobs Americans just won't do"). As education becomes more available, it comes closer to becoming a "right" and is viewed less and less as the privilege that it is. Finally, the motivation to self-educate is diminished when someone can just "take a class." The result is a state-run education system that holds the keys to knowledge and taxes the people more and more as the burden to educate increases. Because education will have become an official right rather than a privilege, it will be a program that the government cannot cut when economic times go lean. Because [nearly] everyone will be educated, either the country will rely on foreign production (again, "jobs Americans just won't do") or else the head janitor at the university will have to have at least a Master's degree to hold the position.
Hyperbole aside, this is a possibility we face: as education becomes more available, its value diminishes. That means students will spend more time in school to be competitive in the job market. The more time a student spends in school, the less time he or she spends working and accumulating wealth. Less time at work and less wealth accumulation means a lower GDP and lower tax revenues. A lower GDP means being less competitive in the "global market," and lower tax revenues means either cutting programs (yeah, right), or increasing state and national debt. As state and national debt increase, taxes go up. As taxes increase, wealth accumulation decreases further until one generation can't afford to educate the next. What's left is an uneducated generation that has to either leave the country to find work, lower their standards for quality of life and quality of work, or rebuild the system from the ground up.
At some point, the system either changes or collapses.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
The Great Prop 8 Debate
On the Left we have the argument that if the California courts allow Proposition 8, a dangerous precedent will be set that allows the voting majority to oppress a minority by amending the constitution to bar them from exercising their rights.
On the Right we have the argument that if the California courts deny Proposition 8, a dangerous precedent will be set that allows the courts to dictate to the people what can be written into their constitution which begins "We the People . . . ," leaving residents to wonder what happened to the notion of a government "of the People, by the People, for the People."
As a Christian, I face a different internal dialogue.
On the one hand, I think the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a violation of God's standards for righteousness. As a Christian with a vote, I supported Proposition 8 at the ballot box because I know that one day I will have to explain to my children why some of their friends have to mommies or two daddies. How am I to explain to my child that in this great country that we are to love and support, we sometimes have laws that contradict what God wants us to do? Moreover, how am I to ensure that my children understand that their rights come from God and not the government when the government is inventing new rights that directly contradict the word of God?
On the other hand, I think the Bible is clear that as a Christian, my life is to be different from that of the world at large. As the world rejects God's standards more, Christianity will be more distinct and therefore each believer will be a stronger witness of Christ. What the world does or what the government does should have little effect on me, my family, or the Church as a whole. Christians are to win hearts, minds, and souls, not elections. Should I not allow people so adamant about legitimizing this lifestyle live out their experiment and have the results visible to the whole world for better or worse? How long before we simply shake the dust from our feet and focus on keeping ourselves from being corrupted by the world?
I suppose that in the end, the mentality by which I will live is up to the courts.
On the Right we have the argument that if the California courts deny Proposition 8, a dangerous precedent will be set that allows the courts to dictate to the people what can be written into their constitution which begins "We the People . . . ," leaving residents to wonder what happened to the notion of a government "of the People, by the People, for the People."
As a Christian, I face a different internal dialogue.
On the one hand, I think the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a violation of God's standards for righteousness. As a Christian with a vote, I supported Proposition 8 at the ballot box because I know that one day I will have to explain to my children why some of their friends have to mommies or two daddies. How am I to explain to my child that in this great country that we are to love and support, we sometimes have laws that contradict what God wants us to do? Moreover, how am I to ensure that my children understand that their rights come from God and not the government when the government is inventing new rights that directly contradict the word of God?
On the other hand, I think the Bible is clear that as a Christian, my life is to be different from that of the world at large. As the world rejects God's standards more, Christianity will be more distinct and therefore each believer will be a stronger witness of Christ. What the world does or what the government does should have little effect on me, my family, or the Church as a whole. Christians are to win hearts, minds, and souls, not elections. Should I not allow people so adamant about legitimizing this lifestyle live out their experiment and have the results visible to the whole world for better or worse? How long before we simply shake the dust from our feet and focus on keeping ourselves from being corrupted by the world?
I suppose that in the end, the mentality by which I will live is up to the courts.
Monday, March 2, 2009
How Our Democracy Is Going Greek
Most people know that democracy is a Greek concept. Most of us have seen the etymology "Demos" = "people"; "cracy" = "rule." That's not what I'm talking about.
American Democracy is characterized by our two party system--Democrats and Republicans always assume office, and everyone else just takes up space on the ballot (mostly). When we register to vote, we are encouraged to select the party with whom we agree most. When we vote, we often do so along party lines because we figure they've done the hard work of thinking it all out for us. Let's hold on to that thought for a minute.
It used to be that the church you attended really said something about your beliefs. Baptists (of every sort), Methodists, Lutherans, Nazarenes, all knew what they believed and all knew they had it "more right" than anyone else. I dare say that your denomination was a factor in your identity.
The ancient Greeks had a different idea. Their religion was not as much about faithfulness or righteousness as it was about results. You pray to the god that helps you, and when the results are not what you want, you move on to another and try him/her for a while.
I see a shift happening in American politics. In case you didn't notice, "conservative" and "Republican" look less alike every day. The so-called "conservative base" didn't vote and McCain lost--even though he was "their candidate." From what I hear on conservative talk radio, voters are ready to leave their denominationalism behind and vote for what they think will work. This is not a result of the people abandoning their principles, it's the politicians that have left their foundation and begun building on sand.
I think we're going Greek.
American Democracy is characterized by our two party system--Democrats and Republicans always assume office, and everyone else just takes up space on the ballot (mostly). When we register to vote, we are encouraged to select the party with whom we agree most. When we vote, we often do so along party lines because we figure they've done the hard work of thinking it all out for us. Let's hold on to that thought for a minute.
It used to be that the church you attended really said something about your beliefs. Baptists (of every sort), Methodists, Lutherans, Nazarenes, all knew what they believed and all knew they had it "more right" than anyone else. I dare say that your denomination was a factor in your identity.
The ancient Greeks had a different idea. Their religion was not as much about faithfulness or righteousness as it was about results. You pray to the god that helps you, and when the results are not what you want, you move on to another and try him/her for a while.
I see a shift happening in American politics. In case you didn't notice, "conservative" and "Republican" look less alike every day. The so-called "conservative base" didn't vote and McCain lost--even though he was "their candidate." From what I hear on conservative talk radio, voters are ready to leave their denominationalism behind and vote for what they think will work. This is not a result of the people abandoning their principles, it's the politicians that have left their foundation and begun building on sand.
I think we're going Greek.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Postmodern Worship?
I know I'm behind the curve on this one, but I'm at a bit of a crossroads. I don't know whether to continue doing worship the way I have or if I should change. Here's the situation:
I get frustrated with worship on the radio for several reasons. The one that applies here is that it all sounds the same. It has been my goal to take songs and personalize them along with the bands I'm playing with; I don't want to sound like something "regurgitated from the Nashville machine." I feel as a musician (and perhaps as someone who listened to Limp Bizkit's cover of George Michael's "Faith" in my formative years) that it's really important to take songs and make them our own because it gives the song real meaning rather than repeating someone else like a robot. To do anything else would be the antithesis of creativity, which is death to a musician (I really don't like the term "artist") and a disservice to the innate abilities God has given us.
On the other hand, these songs have meaning for thousands (millions?) of people regardless of whether they're generic or "cutting edge." Changing a song that means so much to someone is a disservice to them and could quite possibly hinder their worship (trust me, I've been a part of that before). We try to justify "updating" old hymns or altering newer songs by saying "the meaning is in the words, anyway," but that's not true. The meaning is in the melody, in the rhythm, in the harmonies. The meaning is really in the people.
The reason that I want to change a song is the same reason someone else is offended when I do it: the song's personal meaning is altered. On the one hand, I want to argue that changing the song creates a new opportunity for worship--a fresh encounter with God. On the other hand, there's a reason why "Amazing Grace" is played on bagpipes at so many funerals rather than being read aloud.
I want to say that being sensitive to the needs of others is the answer, but it's not. Someone will always be bored, be offended, be invigorated, be convicted, be challenged, be alienated, be drawn in. In a church so focused on every individual's personal relationship with God, how does corporate worship work at all? Does it? The Holy Spirit moves and unifies the voice of thousands, but there were scoffers even at Pentecost. As a congregant, my focus is but twofold; I have two questions to ask myself: (1) "am I really worshipping?" and (2) "is my mode of worship going to cause someone else to stumble?" As a leader or member of a worship team , I have to ask myself those, but there are others. "Am I worshiping alone or am I leading others into the throne room?" "Am I doing my best to lead worship in a way that is inviting to the most people possible in this congregation?"
It's this last question I'm struggling with right now.
I get frustrated with worship on the radio for several reasons. The one that applies here is that it all sounds the same. It has been my goal to take songs and personalize them along with the bands I'm playing with; I don't want to sound like something "regurgitated from the Nashville machine." I feel as a musician (and perhaps as someone who listened to Limp Bizkit's cover of George Michael's "Faith" in my formative years) that it's really important to take songs and make them our own because it gives the song real meaning rather than repeating someone else like a robot. To do anything else would be the antithesis of creativity, which is death to a musician (I really don't like the term "artist") and a disservice to the innate abilities God has given us.
On the other hand, these songs have meaning for thousands (millions?) of people regardless of whether they're generic or "cutting edge." Changing a song that means so much to someone is a disservice to them and could quite possibly hinder their worship (trust me, I've been a part of that before). We try to justify "updating" old hymns or altering newer songs by saying "the meaning is in the words, anyway," but that's not true. The meaning is in the melody, in the rhythm, in the harmonies. The meaning is really in the people.
The reason that I want to change a song is the same reason someone else is offended when I do it: the song's personal meaning is altered. On the one hand, I want to argue that changing the song creates a new opportunity for worship--a fresh encounter with God. On the other hand, there's a reason why "Amazing Grace" is played on bagpipes at so many funerals rather than being read aloud.
I want to say that being sensitive to the needs of others is the answer, but it's not. Someone will always be bored, be offended, be invigorated, be convicted, be challenged, be alienated, be drawn in. In a church so focused on every individual's personal relationship with God, how does corporate worship work at all? Does it? The Holy Spirit moves and unifies the voice of thousands, but there were scoffers even at Pentecost. As a congregant, my focus is but twofold; I have two questions to ask myself: (1) "am I really worshipping?" and (2) "is my mode of worship going to cause someone else to stumble?" As a leader or member of a worship team , I have to ask myself those, but there are others. "Am I worshiping alone or am I leading others into the throne room?" "Am I doing my best to lead worship in a way that is inviting to the most people possible in this congregation?"
It's this last question I'm struggling with right now.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Life of Luxury
I was laying in the reclined driver's seat of my car in the parking lot at college, reading a chapter from a book on cultural studies that I printed at school from an online student interface and listening to music on my new iPhone. I didn't know if I should feel blessed or guilty.
On the one hand, I had to stop everything and give thanks. After all, I could have been chained to a boulder somewhere, or working in some death camp in Siberia, or being tortured. Those are things I don't want. Instead, I'm at college, surrounded by technology that I take advantage of every day and think almost nothing of it. Realizing that, I started to feel the kind of frustration I have when I see a rock star smash a guitar or when an atheist gets on television and says that religion does more harm than good because it's divisive . . . only I was frustrated with myself.
I was born and spent my early childhood in a time before everyone and their 3 year old sister used iPods, DVDs, cell phones, the Internet, or home computers. Had I forgotten that life went on without our precious digital lifestyle? I remember going to the movies to see new Disney cartoons that were hand drawn. Now I get frustrated if I can't find what I'm looking for on Google Video (it's better than YouTube because it draws from more sources, including YouTube).
Everything about my college life is a luxury. I live with my parents. I work part time as a guitar instructor. I attend one of the better Universities in the country. I don't do manual labor for a living. I spend my time learning and teaching, both of which require a substantial amount of free time, which is a luxury. I am, at least in this way, a product of our culture. That which is a luxury becomes a privilege. That which is a privilege becomes a standard. The standard becomes a necessity, and the necessity becomes a "right." Demanding such a "right" develops the idea that the world owes you something, it's having an attitude of entitlement.
I am not entitled. I don't have to have it now if it will cost me with later with interest. I'll pay now by "sacrificing" a bit for a better future. As I have said before: I want joy on layaway, not happiness on credit. The U.S. economy has faltered because it's time to pay the piper for our credit debt; I am no more or less invincible. Therefore, I give thanks.
On the one hand, I had to stop everything and give thanks. After all, I could have been chained to a boulder somewhere, or working in some death camp in Siberia, or being tortured. Those are things I don't want. Instead, I'm at college, surrounded by technology that I take advantage of every day and think almost nothing of it. Realizing that, I started to feel the kind of frustration I have when I see a rock star smash a guitar or when an atheist gets on television and says that religion does more harm than good because it's divisive . . . only I was frustrated with myself.
I was born and spent my early childhood in a time before everyone and their 3 year old sister used iPods, DVDs, cell phones, the Internet, or home computers. Had I forgotten that life went on without our precious digital lifestyle? I remember going to the movies to see new Disney cartoons that were hand drawn. Now I get frustrated if I can't find what I'm looking for on Google Video (it's better than YouTube because it draws from more sources, including YouTube).
Everything about my college life is a luxury. I live with my parents. I work part time as a guitar instructor. I attend one of the better Universities in the country. I don't do manual labor for a living. I spend my time learning and teaching, both of which require a substantial amount of free time, which is a luxury. I am, at least in this way, a product of our culture. That which is a luxury becomes a privilege. That which is a privilege becomes a standard. The standard becomes a necessity, and the necessity becomes a "right." Demanding such a "right" develops the idea that the world owes you something, it's having an attitude of entitlement.
I am not entitled. I don't have to have it now if it will cost me with later with interest. I'll pay now by "sacrificing" a bit for a better future. As I have said before: I want joy on layaway, not happiness on credit. The U.S. economy has faltered because it's time to pay the piper for our credit debt; I am no more or less invincible. Therefore, I give thanks.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Abusing the Apostrophe
Don't use an apostrophe for pluralizing a word! Please, I'm begging you!
This is a grammar problem that needs to be addressed immediately.
This is the most prominent grammar problem I've seen lately. "Guy's" does not mean more than one guy, it means that either something that belongs to guy will be the next word or that Guy is something. It shouldn't be "you guy's are great," it should be "you guys are great." It can be "Guy's comb" or "Guy's a great guy." If it's plural and possessive, the apostrophe goes after the "s," as in "Guys' Room" for the men's bathroom.
In case you couldn't tell from reading this, apostrophes can also be used to form contractions, meaning that two words are joined into one. For example, at the beginning of this paragraph, "could" and "not" are joined by replacing the "o" in "not" with an apostrophe, resulting in "couldn't."
"Its" and "it's" are exceptions to the rules. "Its" is the proper possessive form, for example, "its eyes were yellow." "It's," on the other hand, means either "it is" or "it has" (in certain contexts). "It's" usually means "it is," as in, "it's hot today." "It's" can mean "it has" in phrases such as "it's been cold lately."
Finally, there are only two times you can use an apostrophe to pluralize.
The first is if you're referring to a number of the same letter. You're also supposed to use italics when you pluralize a letter unless it's a grade. Examples are "He has six e's in his name" (not a grade, so it's in italics) and "I got three A's on my report card" (referring to a grade, so it's not in italics).
The second is if you're referring to words as words while quoting (this one is weird, and hard to explain here).
For more grammar tips, please see http://www.english4today.com/englishgrammar/grammar/index.cfm
or
http://www.diannahacker.com/
Or, you can take English 101 at Hancock this summer.
This is a grammar problem that needs to be addressed immediately.
This is the most prominent grammar problem I've seen lately. "Guy's" does not mean more than one guy, it means that either something that belongs to guy will be the next word or that Guy is something. It shouldn't be "you guy's are great," it should be "you guys are great." It can be "Guy's comb" or "Guy's a great guy." If it's plural and possessive, the apostrophe goes after the "s," as in "Guys' Room" for the men's bathroom.
In case you couldn't tell from reading this, apostrophes can also be used to form contractions, meaning that two words are joined into one. For example, at the beginning of this paragraph, "could" and "not" are joined by replacing the "o" in "not" with an apostrophe, resulting in "couldn't."
"Its" and "it's" are exceptions to the rules. "Its" is the proper possessive form, for example, "its eyes were yellow." "It's," on the other hand, means either "it is" or "it has" (in certain contexts). "It's" usually means "it is," as in, "it's hot today." "It's" can mean "it has" in phrases such as "it's been cold lately."
Finally, there are only two times you can use an apostrophe to pluralize.
The first is if you're referring to a number of the same letter. You're also supposed to use italics when you pluralize a letter unless it's a grade. Examples are "He has six e's in his name" (not a grade, so it's in italics) and "I got three A's on my report card" (referring to a grade, so it's not in italics).
The second is if you're referring to words as words while quoting (this one is weird, and hard to explain here).
For more grammar tips, please see http://www.english4today.com/englishgrammar/grammar/index.cfm
or
http://www.diannahacker.com/
Or, you can take English 101 at Hancock this summer.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
All For the Lord
I was catching up with an old friend the other day, and I noticed something in the way she talked that was . . . let's say "odd," for the moment. She has moved to a new area and is involved in a new church (that was the long and short of the catching up, really). I think that her new church is (gulp) . . . changing her.
I knew she was a Christian for a long time, but if I didn't know before I was talking to her, I would certainly have figured it out quickly. That's the "odd" thing about the way she talked, she always brought "the Lord" into the conversation. She talked about how her new pastor's sermons are convicting, but that it's actually good because it challenged her to grow. Don't get it wrong; I'm not saying that she wasn't a good Christian before. What I am saying, however, is that her speech patterns are full of things that I miss hearing on a daily basis: her conversation is "seasoned with salt," she's actually getting to where she's able to "give the reason for the hope [she has]." She says her pastor's sermons are convicting; I say her conversation is!
As I wrap this up, I'm left to wonder which is worse: the fact that neither I nor those around me are talking about Jesus enough for someone to know we're Christians, or the fact that people won't recognize that I referenced two verses of scripture in my description of how she talked (Colossians 4:6 and 1 Peter 3:15, in case you didn't know). Let's talk more about the Lord; it will make us more (gulp) accountable to our own words and we will always be witnesses to those with whom we talk.
I knew she was a Christian for a long time, but if I didn't know before I was talking to her, I would certainly have figured it out quickly. That's the "odd" thing about the way she talked, she always brought "the Lord" into the conversation. She talked about how her new pastor's sermons are convicting, but that it's actually good because it challenged her to grow. Don't get it wrong; I'm not saying that she wasn't a good Christian before. What I am saying, however, is that her speech patterns are full of things that I miss hearing on a daily basis: her conversation is "seasoned with salt," she's actually getting to where she's able to "give the reason for the hope [she has]." She says her pastor's sermons are convicting; I say her conversation is!
As I wrap this up, I'm left to wonder which is worse: the fact that neither I nor those around me are talking about Jesus enough for someone to know we're Christians, or the fact that people won't recognize that I referenced two verses of scripture in my description of how she talked (Colossians 4:6 and 1 Peter 3:15, in case you didn't know). Let's talk more about the Lord; it will make us more (gulp) accountable to our own words and we will always be witnesses to those with whom we talk.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
My House Shall Be Called A House of Prayer
Today at church, we watched a video of a sermon from a praise conference. I don't remember who the preacher was and I don't know when it was taped, but I know it had a powerful effect.
Without getting into details about why it was such a moving sermon, just know that a Southern Baptist congregation of mostly senior citizens were standing on their feet in resopnse to the preacher's testimony about the power of prayer.
The bottom line of the sermon was simple and convicting: above all else, God's house is to be a house of prayer. It doesn't matter what your denomination (or lack thereof) dictates about how a service should go. The music was never meant to be the focal point, and neither was the preaching. The temple in Jerusalem had both, but the ultimate purpose for all of it is to encourage prayer.
The preacher said that it is through prayer that we meet God, that prayer is the channel of all God wants to give us or remove from our lives. Prayer is how we approach the Throne of Grace.
We can think of the Throne of Grace as God's opperating table. That's where he transplants the old man for the new man. It's where he removes the cancer of sin from our lives. It's where He gives us the transfusion of Jesus' blood. Our whole relationship with God starts and survives on prayer.
Without downplaying any of the parts of a typical service (music, preaching, tithes and offerings, bpatisms, the Lord's Supper, etc.), the whole purpose of our public gatherings is to ensure that each individual has that intimate, individual, private moment with God where He holds us, corrects us, comforts us, saves us, fixes us, does all that He would do with us. That place is only accessable through prayer.
"My House Shall Be Called A House of Prayer"
Without getting into details about why it was such a moving sermon, just know that a Southern Baptist congregation of mostly senior citizens were standing on their feet in resopnse to the preacher's testimony about the power of prayer.
The bottom line of the sermon was simple and convicting: above all else, God's house is to be a house of prayer. It doesn't matter what your denomination (or lack thereof) dictates about how a service should go. The music was never meant to be the focal point, and neither was the preaching. The temple in Jerusalem had both, but the ultimate purpose for all of it is to encourage prayer.
The preacher said that it is through prayer that we meet God, that prayer is the channel of all God wants to give us or remove from our lives. Prayer is how we approach the Throne of Grace.
We can think of the Throne of Grace as God's opperating table. That's where he transplants the old man for the new man. It's where he removes the cancer of sin from our lives. It's where He gives us the transfusion of Jesus' blood. Our whole relationship with God starts and survives on prayer.
Without downplaying any of the parts of a typical service (music, preaching, tithes and offerings, bpatisms, the Lord's Supper, etc.), the whole purpose of our public gatherings is to ensure that each individual has that intimate, individual, private moment with God where He holds us, corrects us, comforts us, saves us, fixes us, does all that He would do with us. That place is only accessable through prayer.
"My House Shall Be Called A House of Prayer"
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Media, Morality, and Fantasy
I've heard people complain about how movies and television are full of immorality. Many Christians in particular are disgusted, and cite Psalm 101:3 ("I will set no vile thing before my eyes") as reason not to have cable, nor let their children see "R" rated movies. From listening to my elders, I have come to a realization: where media used to be a tool to reinforce common decency and morality, it is now more than ever an escape from reality--including moral behavior.
The operative word in media is fantasy. Fantasy, of course, has two common uses. The first use is in the sense of the term "fantasy violence," it's a grown-up way of saying "make-believe." The second use is to express a deep desire that someone imagines and dwells on but doesn't expect to live-out in reality.
When media becomes a means of escape (as opposed to mere entertainment), it fulfils both definitions.When someone watches a movie purely for entertainment, they engage in an act of make-believe. When someone watches a movie to escape their reality for a while, they engage in the second form of fantasy whereby they pretend to live out what they see. Rather than enjoying a story, the viewer lives vicariously through the characters and pretends to live another life, distant from what they know and experience on a daily basis.Media as escapism is not inherently bad. Everyone needs to get away for a while, and it's cheaper to go to the video store than it is to fly away on vacation. Where we get into trouble with escaping through media is when we escape to a world whose morality does not reflect reality. To the Christian, morality is best defined in God's Law, and especially in the Ten Commandments. Even an atheist sees the merit of morality and the value of the Ten Commandments as a moral document. Nevertheless, we find that morality is forsaken in many of today's story lines. We are left to question why this is.
While media have been used as propaganda for morality (yes, it is propaganda; no, propaganda is not always bad, despite the stigma surrounding the term), today's writers largely rely on society apart form media to enforce morality and use their stories to offer alternative realities. Where we used to look for the moral to the story, we now hope the immoral protagonist escapes the consequences of his or her actions and continues to live out our sinful fantasies. Whether art imitates life or life imitates art is a question for the philosophers, but when fantasy becomes reality, what will the world look like?
The operative word in media is fantasy. Fantasy, of course, has two common uses. The first use is in the sense of the term "fantasy violence," it's a grown-up way of saying "make-believe." The second use is to express a deep desire that someone imagines and dwells on but doesn't expect to live-out in reality.
When media becomes a means of escape (as opposed to mere entertainment), it fulfils both definitions.When someone watches a movie purely for entertainment, they engage in an act of make-believe. When someone watches a movie to escape their reality for a while, they engage in the second form of fantasy whereby they pretend to live out what they see. Rather than enjoying a story, the viewer lives vicariously through the characters and pretends to live another life, distant from what they know and experience on a daily basis.Media as escapism is not inherently bad. Everyone needs to get away for a while, and it's cheaper to go to the video store than it is to fly away on vacation. Where we get into trouble with escaping through media is when we escape to a world whose morality does not reflect reality. To the Christian, morality is best defined in God's Law, and especially in the Ten Commandments. Even an atheist sees the merit of morality and the value of the Ten Commandments as a moral document. Nevertheless, we find that morality is forsaken in many of today's story lines. We are left to question why this is.
While media have been used as propaganda for morality (yes, it is propaganda; no, propaganda is not always bad, despite the stigma surrounding the term), today's writers largely rely on society apart form media to enforce morality and use their stories to offer alternative realities. Where we used to look for the moral to the story, we now hope the immoral protagonist escapes the consequences of his or her actions and continues to live out our sinful fantasies. Whether art imitates life or life imitates art is a question for the philosophers, but when fantasy becomes reality, what will the world look like?
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Of God and Concepts
God is a just God. God is also a God of love. Most people, Christian or otherwise, believe in these characteristics of God. We believe with good reason. Deuteronomy 32:4 says of God, "He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He." Likewise, 1 John 4:8 tells us that "God is love." As Christians, it is wise for us to consider what Scripture tells us on a deeper level than understanding at a glance.
God's justice is something we tend to minimize in the church, in my experience. I think a great summation of our view of God's justice is found in a Reliant K song, "The beauty of grace is that it makes life not fair." We know that God's justice is tempered with mercy and grace. Mercy is not getting the evil you deserve, grace is getting the good that you don't deserve. Nonetheless, there are a couple of things we need to get straight about God's justice.
First, Psalm 7:11 says "God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day." It's 7:11 because it's always open for business. I've explored the fear of God recently, so I think I've laid enough groundwork to say that God is still going to have the final say, with justice, and leave it at that. Second, even though we believe in mercy and grace as well as God's justice, we still cry out to God that something "isn't fair." It is good that we bring our feelings to God, but it is wrong to hold something against Him in our own heart because somebody else gets what we want. How many times has God given you what someone else wanted? Chances are that the person who gets what you want doesn't know how it's affecting you, just as you probably have no clue how many people are affected by your getting what they want.
Let's take a look at God's love. This is the source of mercy and grace with which God's justice is tempered. Countless people have asked "if God is a loving God, then why do bad things happen?" This is a challenging question, not because it's so complicated (although I wouldn't claim that it isn't), but because our role in understanding the way God works is very simple.
I've heard a few preachers say that when Jesus was crucified, it was the nexus (the meeting point) of God's love and justice. Some go so far as to gesture that one crucified arm represents God's justice (usually the right hand, I think) and the other represents God's love. We can symbolically say (of the symbols just described) that God put justice and love on the cross. Why would I say that? Because it illustrates my main point: God is bigger than concepts.
We cry out that God isn't being fair, as if we could appeal to justice as something God Himself must bow to. We ask how God can be love and still let bad things happen. Hebrews 6:13 says "For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself." If justice or love were bigger than God or above God, wouldn't He have sworn by them? But the scripture says "because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself." God is God! Not justice, not even love, just God! Within Him, justice and love are in their completeness, yet God is still bigger than the both of them! Because He is God, everything He does is automatically right! God doesn't have to answer to anyone, least of all man, who was created in His image, and not the other way around! God isn't being fair? God invented fair! How can God love us and still allow evil? God is love, but love isn't God. He expresses the fullness of love to us in the cross of Jesus Christ, and there's still room in Him for other things! That's why the answer to the question "how can God love us and let bad things happen" is so hard; it's hard because it's simple. God is God, I am not, He can do as He pleases, and as harsh as it sounds, I should be thankful that He even gives me a hint that He might exist, let alone send His only Son to the Cross for the likes of me!
Read Isaiah 40. Read Job 38-42. Read all of those chapters, and think about them the next time you want to sit in judgement of God.
God's justice is something we tend to minimize in the church, in my experience. I think a great summation of our view of God's justice is found in a Reliant K song, "The beauty of grace is that it makes life not fair." We know that God's justice is tempered with mercy and grace. Mercy is not getting the evil you deserve, grace is getting the good that you don't deserve. Nonetheless, there are a couple of things we need to get straight about God's justice.
First, Psalm 7:11 says "God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day." It's 7:11 because it's always open for business. I've explored the fear of God recently, so I think I've laid enough groundwork to say that God is still going to have the final say, with justice, and leave it at that. Second, even though we believe in mercy and grace as well as God's justice, we still cry out to God that something "isn't fair." It is good that we bring our feelings to God, but it is wrong to hold something against Him in our own heart because somebody else gets what we want. How many times has God given you what someone else wanted? Chances are that the person who gets what you want doesn't know how it's affecting you, just as you probably have no clue how many people are affected by your getting what they want.
Let's take a look at God's love. This is the source of mercy and grace with which God's justice is tempered. Countless people have asked "if God is a loving God, then why do bad things happen?" This is a challenging question, not because it's so complicated (although I wouldn't claim that it isn't), but because our role in understanding the way God works is very simple.
I've heard a few preachers say that when Jesus was crucified, it was the nexus (the meeting point) of God's love and justice. Some go so far as to gesture that one crucified arm represents God's justice (usually the right hand, I think) and the other represents God's love. We can symbolically say (of the symbols just described) that God put justice and love on the cross. Why would I say that? Because it illustrates my main point: God is bigger than concepts.
We cry out that God isn't being fair, as if we could appeal to justice as something God Himself must bow to. We ask how God can be love and still let bad things happen. Hebrews 6:13 says "For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself." If justice or love were bigger than God or above God, wouldn't He have sworn by them? But the scripture says "because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself." God is God! Not justice, not even love, just God! Within Him, justice and love are in their completeness, yet God is still bigger than the both of them! Because He is God, everything He does is automatically right! God doesn't have to answer to anyone, least of all man, who was created in His image, and not the other way around! God isn't being fair? God invented fair! How can God love us and still allow evil? God is love, but love isn't God. He expresses the fullness of love to us in the cross of Jesus Christ, and there's still room in Him for other things! That's why the answer to the question "how can God love us and let bad things happen" is so hard; it's hard because it's simple. God is God, I am not, He can do as He pleases, and as harsh as it sounds, I should be thankful that He even gives me a hint that He might exist, let alone send His only Son to the Cross for the likes of me!
Read Isaiah 40. Read Job 38-42. Read all of those chapters, and think about them the next time you want to sit in judgement of God.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Exchanging Reverence for Relevance Part 4: My Views
I have come to the conclusion that if we fail to show the fear of God, we are not giving a complete witness. In developing this series of blogs into a message or possibly a short series, I came to a point where this hypothetical situation was necessary:
Let’s pretend you’re hanging out with some friends who aren’t Christians. That’s a good thing. Let’s pretend they want to get drunk. That’s a bad thing. There are a lot of people today who will tell you that it’s ok for you to drink with them because they’ll be able to identify with you more and that makes them more likely to become Christians. I disagree. If you do it, you’re telling them it’s acceptable to God that you do so. Scripture says otherwise. “And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18). Now let’s take it one step further and say that you all pile into a car drunk and die. When it comes time to be judged, you’ll be ok because you’re saved, though that sin will be burned away (1 Corinthians 3:11-15). Your friends, who died with you and from the same sin you committed, being unbelievers, will be punished for it by hellfire rather than cleaned by God’s refiner’s fire. I don’t like scare tactics, but sometimes the truth is uncomfortable.
So we see that if we don’t demonstrate the proper fear and respect that God deserves and demands, what we end up demonstrating a falsehood: that God’s judgment is not to be feared.
And so, for now, I will end my online persuit of this topic.
Let’s pretend you’re hanging out with some friends who aren’t Christians. That’s a good thing. Let’s pretend they want to get drunk. That’s a bad thing. There are a lot of people today who will tell you that it’s ok for you to drink with them because they’ll be able to identify with you more and that makes them more likely to become Christians. I disagree. If you do it, you’re telling them it’s acceptable to God that you do so. Scripture says otherwise. “And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18). Now let’s take it one step further and say that you all pile into a car drunk and die. When it comes time to be judged, you’ll be ok because you’re saved, though that sin will be burned away (1 Corinthians 3:11-15). Your friends, who died with you and from the same sin you committed, being unbelievers, will be punished for it by hellfire rather than cleaned by God’s refiner’s fire. I don’t like scare tactics, but sometimes the truth is uncomfortable.
So we see that if we don’t demonstrate the proper fear and respect that God deserves and demands, what we end up demonstrating a falsehood: that God’s judgment is not to be feared.
And so, for now, I will end my online persuit of this topic.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Reverence and Relevence Part 3: The Consequence of "Yes"
Before I get into the consequences of affirming that the American Church has largely played-down the fear of God, I want to clarify my approach. I don't know what the specific role of the fear of God is in the life of the believer. I do have a feeling that we play it down more than we should. What I'm doing here is essentially recording the process of trying to figure it out. There is no guarantee of success here, I may never know. I may give up on the quest. But for the mean time, this is a subject of interest to me, so I'm going for it.
Now then, I have a little story to tell. This Wednesday, a couple of evangelists came to Cal Poly and allegedly preached that God hates the sinner as much as He hate the sin. I cannot verify nor deny that this was their message, it's what I saw in the school paper. Regardless of what actually happened, it opens up the dialogue on the fear of God (and I guess there was an impromptu debate at the site of the street preaching). I don't agree with the alleged message, but I think I can see where it would come from.
At the beginning of shows like Survivorman, Man vs. Wild, the Crocodile Hunter, even Jackass and Ninja Warrior, there is a disclaimer that says something along the lines of "These activities were performed by professionals or under the supervision of professionals. Accordingly, we must insist that no one attempts to duplicate them." Why would such a varied list of shows have the same general warning? While many would answer "because the people who do those things are stupid," the real reason is because WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS DANGEROUS! If you've watched even 5 minutes of one of these shows, you see what happens to the people who are properly prepared.
Leviticus 16:1-4 says:
1 Now the Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered profane fire before the Lord, and died; 2 and the Lord said to Moses: "Tell Aaron your brother not to come at just any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, lest he die; for I will appear in the cloud above the mercy seat. 3 Thus Aaron shall come into the Holy Place: with the blood of a young bull as a sin offering, and of a ram as a burnt offering. 4 He shall put the holy linen tunic and the linen trousers on his body; he shall be girded with a linen sash, and with the linen turban he shall be attired. These are holy garments. Therefore he shall wash his body in water, and put them on. . . .
Coming in to the presence of God is dangerous! God will not permit unclean thing in His presence! The priests were trained professionals in coming before God, and some of them died anyway! Take Steve Erwin, the Crocodile Hunter, as an example. How many times did you see him get bitten, scratched, hit, spit on, or have any number of other bad things happen to him as a result of entering the presence of animals that were familiar to him? (His unfortunate death is a lasting witness of the unpredictability of wild animals, and I wanted to mention it because it no doubt comes to mind, though I don't want to use it as an example in this analogy.) How many times did he explain "I let my guard down for a minute there," or "You really need to pay attention at all times when you're dealing with wild animals"?
Imagine what happens to the unprepared!
2 Samuel 6:3-7
3 They set the ark of God on a new cart and brought it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the new cart 4 with the ark of God on it, and Ahio was walking in front of it. 5 David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the Lord, with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals.
6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The Lord's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.
First of all, the ark was meant to be carried on special poles, not on a cart (Exodus 37:1-5). Second, no one was to touch the ark on pain of death, as demonstrated by Uzzah.
There are two basic lessons here.
1. One should not approach God without the proper preparation. In our case, the blood of Christ. (John 14:6 "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'")
2. Once you are properly prepared to come before God, you still need to guard your steps. (Romans 6:15-18 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.)
Remember all those incidents between Steve Erwin and the animals he knew and loved. By the way, do you have as close and as studious of a relationship with God as Steve Erwin did with those animals? (Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.)
Now then, I have a little story to tell. This Wednesday, a couple of evangelists came to Cal Poly and allegedly preached that God hates the sinner as much as He hate the sin. I cannot verify nor deny that this was their message, it's what I saw in the school paper. Regardless of what actually happened, it opens up the dialogue on the fear of God (and I guess there was an impromptu debate at the site of the street preaching). I don't agree with the alleged message, but I think I can see where it would come from.
At the beginning of shows like Survivorman, Man vs. Wild, the Crocodile Hunter, even Jackass and Ninja Warrior, there is a disclaimer that says something along the lines of "These activities were performed by professionals or under the supervision of professionals. Accordingly, we must insist that no one attempts to duplicate them." Why would such a varied list of shows have the same general warning? While many would answer "because the people who do those things are stupid," the real reason is because WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS DANGEROUS! If you've watched even 5 minutes of one of these shows, you see what happens to the people who are properly prepared.
Leviticus 16:1-4 says:
1 Now the Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered profane fire before the Lord, and died; 2 and the Lord said to Moses: "Tell Aaron your brother not to come at just any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, lest he die; for I will appear in the cloud above the mercy seat. 3 Thus Aaron shall come into the Holy Place: with the blood of a young bull as a sin offering, and of a ram as a burnt offering. 4 He shall put the holy linen tunic and the linen trousers on his body; he shall be girded with a linen sash, and with the linen turban he shall be attired. These are holy garments. Therefore he shall wash his body in water, and put them on. . . .
Coming in to the presence of God is dangerous! God will not permit unclean thing in His presence! The priests were trained professionals in coming before God, and some of them died anyway! Take Steve Erwin, the Crocodile Hunter, as an example. How many times did you see him get bitten, scratched, hit, spit on, or have any number of other bad things happen to him as a result of entering the presence of animals that were familiar to him? (His unfortunate death is a lasting witness of the unpredictability of wild animals, and I wanted to mention it because it no doubt comes to mind, though I don't want to use it as an example in this analogy.) How many times did he explain "I let my guard down for a minute there," or "You really need to pay attention at all times when you're dealing with wild animals"?
Imagine what happens to the unprepared!
2 Samuel 6:3-7
3 They set the ark of God on a new cart and brought it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the new cart 4 with the ark of God on it, and Ahio was walking in front of it. 5 David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the Lord, with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals.
6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The Lord's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.
First of all, the ark was meant to be carried on special poles, not on a cart (Exodus 37:1-5). Second, no one was to touch the ark on pain of death, as demonstrated by Uzzah.
There are two basic lessons here.
1. One should not approach God without the proper preparation. In our case, the blood of Christ. (John 14:6 "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'")
2. Once you are properly prepared to come before God, you still need to guard your steps. (Romans 6:15-18 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.)
Remember all those incidents between Steve Erwin and the animals he knew and loved. By the way, do you have as close and as studious of a relationship with God as Steve Erwin did with those animals? (Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.)
Monday, April 7, 2008
Reverance and Relevance Part Two, "Why?"
I am posing this question for a few reasons, and I’ll list them in an honest order. First, I see a lack of the fear of God in others. I say this because of how easy it is for Christians to treat each other so poorly. I saw it initially in my own age-group, but I have come to believe that in all generations (even the elders who grew up being taught the fear of God) there is an unfortunate lack of fear. Second, that makes me look at myself and see a lack of the fear of God. The manifestation of the lack of fear in my own life is sin. It just seems too easy. Third, both of these make me ponder the role of the Fear of God in the life of the believer. My understanding at this point is centered on Hebrews 12:10-11:
Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
As a child, I dearly loved my parents, but I can also recall several times when I feared them. The first episode that comes to mind is one of my early elementary school teachers having me clean my shoes after having played in the mud. I remember cleaning out the treads with a stick as I was crying, and I kept repeating “my parents are gonna' kill me!”
As a result of this scripture and my own experience that I pray lends understanding to my relationship with God (I happen to view earthly relationships as shadows and metaphors of eternal relationships), I submit that the fear of God is especially important in our training for righteousness as immature believers. 1 John 4:18 says, “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” This scripture implies to me that fear is a part of the growing process. It seems to say that love replaces fear, and I would say our natural relationships with our parents (if they’re good parents) follow a similar development.
The girl who grows up with a “friend-mom” (tries to be cool with the younger generation, would rather party with her daughter than limit her “fun” because she’s too weak to let her daughter be mad at her for a few days for having done the right thing) loves her mom at the time. But when she’s grown up, she’s screwed up, and begins to resent her mother. The same happens with parents who are overbearing and much too strict, to be fair. The child whose parents set reasonable limitations and weren’t afraid to suffer the wrath of their children for having done the right thing even when it’s inconvenient, however, shifts from fearing as a child to respecting as a young adult to loving , appreciating, and imitating as a parent in the future. That’s what I understand the role of the fear of God to be, and that’s why I ask whether we’ve traded it for relevance. Perhaps another way to phrase the question is whether God is like a friend-mom, and if not, why do we treat Him that way?
Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
As a child, I dearly loved my parents, but I can also recall several times when I feared them. The first episode that comes to mind is one of my early elementary school teachers having me clean my shoes after having played in the mud. I remember cleaning out the treads with a stick as I was crying, and I kept repeating “my parents are gonna' kill me!”
As a result of this scripture and my own experience that I pray lends understanding to my relationship with God (I happen to view earthly relationships as shadows and metaphors of eternal relationships), I submit that the fear of God is especially important in our training for righteousness as immature believers. 1 John 4:18 says, “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” This scripture implies to me that fear is a part of the growing process. It seems to say that love replaces fear, and I would say our natural relationships with our parents (if they’re good parents) follow a similar development.
The girl who grows up with a “friend-mom” (tries to be cool with the younger generation, would rather party with her daughter than limit her “fun” because she’s too weak to let her daughter be mad at her for a few days for having done the right thing) loves her mom at the time. But when she’s grown up, she’s screwed up, and begins to resent her mother. The same happens with parents who are overbearing and much too strict, to be fair. The child whose parents set reasonable limitations and weren’t afraid to suffer the wrath of their children for having done the right thing even when it’s inconvenient, however, shifts from fearing as a child to respecting as a young adult to loving , appreciating, and imitating as a parent in the future. That’s what I understand the role of the fear of God to be, and that’s why I ask whether we’ve traded it for relevance. Perhaps another way to phrase the question is whether God is like a friend-mom, and if not, why do we treat Him that way?
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Exchanging Reverance For Relevance, Part One: A Question
Is the American Church guilty of sacrificing our fear and reverence of our Holy, inapproachable, infinitely just God for the sake of making Him appear more friendly to the average American?
I'll have to qualify my question here, I suppose. First, I accept that the whole of the Church in the US is not guilty of doing this, what I'm asking about here is the Church in general rather than in each individual case. Second, I believe just as other Christians do that God is not only about justice, otherwise I wouldn't be a Christian. "It is by grace you have been saved. This is through faith, and not of yourselves. It is the gift of Almighty God, not by works, so that no man can boast"(Ephesians 2:8-9, paraphrased). What I'm asking is whether we are, in effect, acting as God's PR agent in the world, highlighting what makes us comfortable with Him and playing down what scares us or makes us uncomfortable.
In the next installments, I'll share my reasons for asking this question, explore the implications of answering "yes" to this question, and present my view (not by any means an expert evaluation of the issue).
I'll have to qualify my question here, I suppose. First, I accept that the whole of the Church in the US is not guilty of doing this, what I'm asking about here is the Church in general rather than in each individual case. Second, I believe just as other Christians do that God is not only about justice, otherwise I wouldn't be a Christian. "It is by grace you have been saved. This is through faith, and not of yourselves. It is the gift of Almighty God, not by works, so that no man can boast"(Ephesians 2:8-9, paraphrased). What I'm asking is whether we are, in effect, acting as God's PR agent in the world, highlighting what makes us comfortable with Him and playing down what scares us or makes us uncomfortable.
In the next installments, I'll share my reasons for asking this question, explore the implications of answering "yes" to this question, and present my view (not by any means an expert evaluation of the issue).
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Fear and the Stars
I may be a coward, but when it's late at night and I look straight up into the dark sky, I get afraid. As I focus on the prominent stars, all of the dim ones make themselves known. I can't take it for even a minute, I just get too nervous. Maybe it's the vulnerability of not seeing anything around me and only looking up. Maybe it's the wonder of creation or the fear of God. Maybe it's just a quirk. Whatever it is, please don't skeak up on me while I'm looking straight up into the night sky.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
"Scientistic Society"
It is a mistake to forsake the metaphysical for the physical ("scientism", to use one of Richard Weaver's terms), a trend one might say our country is following. Those truths apart from empirical science and those beliefs in which we put our faith and upon which we have previously based our lives are being replaced by “hard truths” apprehended by human reason and intellect. When the concept of virtue is replaced by conditioning and faith is replaced by knowledge, humanity looses a part of itself. When that part, which makes up much of what is admirable and what makes society work, is removed, what is left but those inclinations which were previously held in check by virtue and faith? What would have been expressed in a verbal attack is now made physical, and character assassinations are replaced with the real thing. Lustful fantasies are replaced by adultery and rape, and coveting by theft. There are certain things in human nature that should not be expressed, and the best restraint for them is that which is destroyed by “scientistic thought”.
Friday, October 26, 2007
"This Brings Me Great Happiness"
It's simple, it's clean. I can identify. It's fun. Oh, and most importantly, it's a great song.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Matthew 5:13-16
Matthew 5:13-16
13 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. 14 You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.
Carl Bloomberg (Bible Scholar, from his commentary on Matthew):
Both metaphors of salt and light raise important questions about Christian involvement in society regarding all forms of separatism or withdrawal. We are not called to control secular power structures; neither are we promised that we can Christianize the legislation and values of the world. But we must remain active preservative agents, indeed irritants, in calling the world to heed God’s standards. We dare not form isolated Christian enclaves to which the world pays no attention.
13 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. 14 You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.
Carl Bloomberg (Bible Scholar, from his commentary on Matthew):
Both metaphors of salt and light raise important questions about Christian involvement in society regarding all forms of separatism or withdrawal. We are not called to control secular power structures; neither are we promised that we can Christianize the legislation and values of the world. But we must remain active preservative agents, indeed irritants, in calling the world to heed God’s standards. We dare not form isolated Christian enclaves to which the world pays no attention.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Questions
Today, for some odd reason, I was questioning myself about the Christian faith I share with so many others. I wasn't questioning its truth or validity, but rather I was asking questions to clarify certain positions I take based on my understanding of Scripture and God. I imagined myself in an open public forum, in which people submitted anonymous questions in writing and a panel of Christians (which I was on) answered to the best of their ability. We didn't claim to represent "the" definitive answer to be expected of all Christians, just real answers from real Christians. (By the way, I think this could be a good idea to do in real life.) The average answer took around twenty minutes in my mind as a discourse (I commute more than an hour one way to school and back each day, plus I have a three hour gap between classes on Monday and Wednesday, so I've got the time). The questions included my positions on:
-Homosexuality
-What is a "Christian"?
-What happens to people who die that haven't heard about Christ?
-The relationship between the Church and Israel
-Separation of Church and State
The first two were fairly quick, but I did imagine having the audience all close their eyes and asking anyone who wanted a more in-depth answer about anything (for some reason I was emphasizing the answer about homosexuality) to raise their hand. I told them that they could submit what they wanted me to make clearer or adress that I hadn't in writing during an intermission. I ended up doing one more question, first, though.
My longest answer was about what happens to people who die thta haven't heard about Christ, mostly because I explained five perspectives on the subject and how I interpreted them to come to the conclusion of what I believe to be the case concerning such people.
The intermission took place here, at which point I (in reality) prayed and then listened to some of the first Thrice album, Identity Crisis. (No, this was not in any way a reflection of why I was asking myself questions.)
The next two answers were a bit more political in nature, but it was great to re-afirm Israel's importance; I hadn't thought much about it for a while. The church and state question was fun because I got to interpret both the Bible and the United States Constitution.
To conclude all of this, I am a dork. Perhaps the man who told me I thought too much (it was a weird experience, seeing as it was on the day I met him) was right, but I like to think. So I'll try to think about things pertaining to the Kingdom (no, I don't mean the movie staring Jamie Fox). Maybe I'll post my answers sometime...
-Homosexuality
-What is a "Christian"?
-What happens to people who die that haven't heard about Christ?
-The relationship between the Church and Israel
-Separation of Church and State
The first two were fairly quick, but I did imagine having the audience all close their eyes and asking anyone who wanted a more in-depth answer about anything (for some reason I was emphasizing the answer about homosexuality) to raise their hand. I told them that they could submit what they wanted me to make clearer or adress that I hadn't in writing during an intermission. I ended up doing one more question, first, though.
My longest answer was about what happens to people who die thta haven't heard about Christ, mostly because I explained five perspectives on the subject and how I interpreted them to come to the conclusion of what I believe to be the case concerning such people.
The intermission took place here, at which point I (in reality) prayed and then listened to some of the first Thrice album, Identity Crisis. (No, this was not in any way a reflection of why I was asking myself questions.)
The next two answers were a bit more political in nature, but it was great to re-afirm Israel's importance; I hadn't thought much about it for a while. The church and state question was fun because I got to interpret both the Bible and the United States Constitution.
To conclude all of this, I am a dork. Perhaps the man who told me I thought too much (it was a weird experience, seeing as it was on the day I met him) was right, but I like to think. So I'll try to think about things pertaining to the Kingdom (no, I don't mean the movie staring Jamie Fox). Maybe I'll post my answers sometime...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)