tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67847922024-03-07T18:51:12.329-08:00Two Copper Coins Revamping My Site. I've decided to start preaching.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.comBlogger253125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-39962995063597036732013-09-23T21:59:00.000-07:002013-09-23T21:59:32.148-07:00Theistic EvolutionEvolution is a rats nest of arguments and emotions in the Christian world. I've heard sermons and teachings on how terrible and undermining it can be to the Christian message. In more recent years, I've viewed these kinds of teachings with no small amount of eye-rolling and irritation.<br />
<br />
It started years ago. I got to a place in my walk with Christ when I realized: I don't care if God created the world in six days or six trillion. It's the same God to me, and however he did it is fine by me. I harbored a mistrust of science and scientists in general, believing they were too sure of their interpretations of data, which seemed to change drastically every decade or so. I still carry such suspicions, but I've come to accept that the current science on any given topic is, for the most part, our best understanding so far, and this includes evolution. I have no trouble incorporating that notion into the mystery of creation, the majesty of design, and the supremacy of God's plan. Viewing it all with the very hand of God in mind, it's amazing.<br />
<br />
Over a year ago, a man gave a sermon in which he mentioned evolution, claiming it was destructive and offensive to God. "If we came from monkeys," he said, "then there's nothing special about us." In my mind, the plan of God in the Bible does indicate that there is something special about humanity, but this man was claiming that our connection to apes made us somehow less special, less than human, less than--if you will--children of God. When he said that, I thought, "No. If we came from monkeys, that just means there's something really special about monkeys." This opened the door to me for all kinds of thoughts--amazing thoughts--about our connection to the world, the blessedness of all of creation, from stars and planets and black holes to algae and fungus and lizards and apes... and us. Does it bother you that we're "just monkeys." Because it amazes me that maybe even monkeys aren't "just monkeys."<br />
<br />
But I couldn't stop there. Amazement is a good place to start, but then the theology was begging to be explored. I went to Utah's Natural History Museum and explored the geological scientific reconstructed history of earth. I encountered dinosaur bones and ancient human tools with fresh eyes and wondered about what it all meant. And this disturbed me for a while, and still does. Because what does it all mean? It's one thing to marvel at God's creation, the progression of new life after new life, but what do hundreds of millions of years of evolution really mean? Can we believe that they were all really just a long convoluted path to get to us? Humans?<br />
<br />
And then more thoughts disturbed me. What about the ages and ages of animals, of predator and prey, of life and death, of eating and being eaten, an endless cycle of creation and destruction, of ice, fire and flood? What did it all mean? And what does it do to the actual message of Genesis. Forget the seven days and the sabbath (important in its own right) and think about what the creation story of Genesis really means. It means God created humans to be like himself--special. It means that God gave form and order to a chaotic mass of atoms. He made the heavens and the earth. And it means that he found it all to be good. But what do we think of that message in the light of evolution? I found myself at a loss. I don't know what that means. I don't know what God was doing with those hundreds of millions of years. And what of the garden of Eden story. If we know now that plants and animals were dying, were devouring each other, were caught in cycles of violence, went extinct and were lost to memory, what does that do to our understanding of sin. We say that death comes from sin, and that sin came to the world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Sure, it might just be a story, and maybe Eve wasn't really made from Adam's rib, and they didn't actually walk in a real garden completely content, but the story still has a meaning without all of that being exactly true. The real question is, what is that meaning really? And what is the meaning of evolution? Are they in conflict? I have not seen anyone tackling these questions. Theistic Evolutionists seem content to rejoice in their newfound amazement at God's marvelous plan with evolution, while the rest of the Christian world rails about the literal interpretation of what they consider a completely perfect book. Neither side seems ready to even think about all the implications that embracing evolution might have, and whether those implications are worthwhile or not. Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-533916135281092562013-05-29T22:56:00.003-07:002013-05-29T22:56:47.593-07:00Time With God<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
In my last sermon, I talked about the principles to keep in
mind as we work on this messy life of discipleship and life with God. Now I’d
like to talk more specifically about the methods we employ to reinforce these
principles. I’ve been involved in different churches with different
philosophies. Some stress bible reading and prayer. Others stress service and
giving. Different churches suggest different avenues of life with God, many of
which are amazing and good, but many of us wonder where to start. Some of us
have done it all and still feel like children of faith, so what do we have to
fall back on.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let me first repeat what I’ve said before: a method is not a
guarantee of success, any more than having the right tractor is a guarantee of
a bountiful harvest. Even less is your method in any way a measure of your
success. Success, in this life with God, actually comes from God. It says in
Mark 4:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span class="content">“This is what
the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground. Night and day,
whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not
know how. All by itself the soil produces grain—first the stalk, then the head,
then the full kernel in the head. As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the
sickle to it, because the harvest has come.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="content">This is not the full story, but it is a
major part of it. We need to remember first and foremost that growth comes from
God. We can’t manufacture it. We can only nurture it. For this reason, I
believe that our first priority is to go to God. Spend time with him. Talk to
him. Sit still and try to listen to him. There are two sisters who are friends
with Jesus, and in one of the stories in the gospels, the two sisters, Mary and
Martha, choose different ways of relating with Jesus. Martha works her butt off
to make sure everything goes perfectly, just like a dutiful hostess should.
Mary lazily sits at Jesus’s feet and gets to just listen to the things he says
and spend time with him. If you think about it, Mary’s not being a very good
sister or a very good host, but when Martha comes in to scold Mary for just
sitting around, Jesus contradicts her. It was in fact Martha who was too
concerned with doing, and Mary who had chosen what is better. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="content">This story is clearly not meant to teach
people to be lazy and skip out on their chores. But it is setting a higher
priority. Sitting still, listening, waiting, and spending time with God come
first. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="content">My college professor, Scot McKnight,
said some things about the Sabbath that I really appreciated. He said that in
our Western culture we think of the Sabbath as a time to get ready for the work
week. We’ve moved Sabbath to the beginning of the week, and made it about
gearing up for the all the work that needs to be done. But when the Jewish
rabbis talked about the Sabbath, it was not something to get you prepared for
what’s next—it was the day that you looked forward to. You work all week long,
and then finally—the holy Sabbath: rest; joy; deep, luxuriating breaths; time
and more time; time to spend with God, worshiping and celebrating. In our
culture we’ve idolized work. We’ve prioritized doing above all else. But the
way of Jesus prioritizes stillness, rest, listening, and quality time. Our time
with God is something to look forward to. And yes, it should help us get
through all the work we have to do. In fact, the more work we have to do, the
more we need to spend time with God. But let’s not forget that our time with
God is the time to look forward to. Psalm 42:2 says, “</span>My soul thirsts
for God, for the living God. When can I go and meet with God?” Our souls are
thirsty, so we need to give them time to drink.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With all this in mind, then, my first method for growth and
discipleship is to spend time with God each day. Can you spend time with God
while doing the dishes? Yeah. While at your job? Sure. Playing games, running a
marathon, chatting with friends, walking your dog? Yes, of course. God is all
around us and I encourage including him in all your time, all your activities.
But there is something refreshing and foundational in taking time out of each
day to be still, to do nothing, to quiet your mind and just listen. When you
take time out of your day to be with God alone, there is both great joy and
great power in that.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let me delve deeper into this time with God, because I think
a lot of us are confused. A lot of us might see this as a chore or a duty. We
might sit still and pray and meditate and read the bible and journal and do all
the things that we’ve been told should help, but we sit in confusion, and our
stillness turns to frustration. Our prayers feel hollow. Our souls feel empty.
They don’t always feel thirsty, nor do they feel like they’re getting a drink.
Are we doing it wrong? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, to put it a little too simply, yes. Yes we’re doing it
wrong, because we’re doing it for the wrong reasons and with the wrong attitude
or disposition. There are different ways of spending time with God. I
personally feel a strong benefit from meditation and often from prayer, but it
might help some to write down their thoughts or to read a passage from the
bible or from another inspiring piece of literature, and some might prefer to
go for a walk. The important thing is to employ the method that works for you
and then work to fix your mindset. Our mindset, our attitude, our disposition:
these things are what make our time with God worthwhile. It’s very much like if
you spend time with another person. Not everyone you meet is someone you’re
going to want to open up to. And you might not want to spill your guts to
someone every time you meet them, but this is not just any someone. This is the
one who made you and who loves you unconditionally. You don’t always have to
talk, but you do have to open your heart. You do have to believe that this is a
person that you like, a being that you trust. We come to God with the mindset
that our whole selves are laid bare before him. If we don’t, we end up doing
the same thing we do with people we don’t even like. We put up walls. We don’t
let them in. We emphasize our personal space, and maybe we stick our foot out a
little so they can’t creep too close. We’re uncomfortable. Sometimes you find
yourself feeling that way about God. If so, it’s important to figure out why
you feel that way. Chances are, you’re either believing something about God
that’s not true, or you’re hiding something from God that he already knows, but
you don’t want to talk about, or both of these. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The important thing here is to keep in mind the principles
that I went over n my last sermon—primarily, the principle of awareness. Spending
time with God (if we can manage to be still and really connect with him) can
help us to become aware of God and of our own attitudes, dispositions, and
thought patterns. This awareness alone is sometimes enough to hold back that
temper or work harder at kindness and generosity when the opportunity arises.
But let me also present a warning here. If you are new to this, and you start
meditating or praying every day, you are going to feel some resistance at first—hard
resistance. If anger is a problem in your life, it’s going to seem like you’re
getting angry all the time. If you’re proud or selfish, you’re going to
experience those problems all the more. As they say, sometimes it has to get
worse before it gets better. This is a natural outcome for a couple of reasons.
First of all, sometimes our minds prefer the status quo. It’s like when you
start going on a diet, and for the first couple of days you feel really extra
hungry all the time. Your brain is trying to get your body to stay the same,
and you may have to force it to change. After the first few days, the diet
might become routine and the hunger pangs might leave you alone. Secondly, if
you’re increasing your awareness, you are suddenly opening yourself up to your
true state of mind. It may feel like you’re getting angry more often, only
because you notice it that much more. Your awareness, and your connection with
God, are bringing your faults and struggles to the forefront of your attention.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is vital at this time that you apply the principle I
mentioned in my last sermon: do not give up. You need to turn things around in
your mind. When we try to change and meet such resistance, we often take it as
a sign that we’re on the wrong track, that what we’re trying out just isn’t
going to work. We might think we were better off before. Don’t believe it. Also
apply the other principle, be malleable. Be changeable. Try to think of these experiences
as opportunities instead of hardships. Your connection with God has brought you
an opportunity to overcome a chronic problem in your life. You’re seeing
something for what it is and has been for some time. Embrace this chance that
you have to turn things around. Rejoice, because God is working in your life.
It is not a sign of failure or a misstep. It’s a clear sign that you’ve stepped
off the wide and easy path in search of the narrow one. Stepping off the path
we’re used to is always going to feel difficult. Learn to enjoy the challenges
that come your way, and don’t give up. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Hopefully, this has helped a bit. I do not recommend any one
method as a blanket prescription for all Christ followers, but I do recommend a
daily time with God. Feel free to experiment. Try out different things. The
important thing is to renew your mind, quiet your heart, and enjoy your time with
God. It is a blessing that many followers of Jesus have experienced, and from
which anyone can benefit. There are, of course, many things that God’s people
can do to live in discipleship, most of which are obvious, but I suggest a
daily time with God as the best place to start. After that, let him guide you
into the work that is right for you.</div>
Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-20735398333267775622013-05-18T12:57:00.000-07:002013-05-18T12:57:08.515-07:00It's Messy<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Last time, I talked about discipleship, and how we all seem
to be struggling with it. We all seem to be stuck in our ruts, making the same
mistakes over and over, wallowing in guilt and insecurity. I myself have
experienced these issues over and over. Sometimes I pull away from them.
Sometimes I get deeper into despair and fruitlessness. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I don’t want to over-generalize. I think it is very helpful
for us to remember, that not everybody is in this sorry state of helpless
struggle. I myself sometimes read passages in the Bible that speak of
overcoming and the power to live life with God, and I wonder why none of us are
really there. But there’s yet another false assumption. Though many of us do
struggle, a few people, scattered among the churches, are actually doing really
well. They are actively involved with God and thriving in the way of Jesus.
They have their own struggles, too, but let’s not get into the trap of
believing it’s utterly hopeless and pointless to even try.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But here we are, many of us struggling day after day,
sometimes doing well, and sometimes horrible. And many Christians are out there
looking for the magic key that will make their spiritual lives take off. We
want a formula, some kind of pill would be nice. A simple A + B = C, which equals
new life in Christ. And you’ll hear sermon after sermon and attend conference
after conference and read book after cheesy Christian book that will try to
tell you the secret, the magic formula that will make it all better. These
formulas range from a simple “trust in Jesus” to some complicated steps you
have to take. And you try one thing after another, from daily devotions to
small groups to service projects to incense burning, to anything you can think
of to change your way of life permanently, but they often grow stale and
ineffectual. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Perhaps you’ll think of this as bad news, or maybe it’s
good, but the fact is that there is no formula. There are always steps you can
take that will help, but nothing guarantees growth. There’s no magic key to
making it all work right. It’s a messy life filled with ups and downs and we
can’t flip a switch and become the complete people of God we’ve been longing to
be. There is no switch. It’s just… life. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That being said, there are a few principles to hold on to
and a few practices to master, which should help greatly in living life with
God. Jesus often used agricultural metaphors, and I think it is in part because
life works a lot like working the land. You need to work hard and give your
crops lots of attention, if you want them to grow, but you also need rain and
sunshine and good soil. You might be the hardest-working farmer alive, but if there’s a
drought, you’re going to have a tough time of it. A farmer knows these things
and has always historically sought God or gods for his/their blessing to send
rain and sun and everything they need for the crop to survive. We do the same
in life, knowing that times of drought or flood may come, yet seeking God for
his help nonetheless—and at the same time, we must do our part to live by the
principles we hold dear.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First of these principles, in my mind, is that this is a
life <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">with</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God</i>. More than trying to do your duty to try and curry favor with
God, more even than trusting in God to take care of you, The way of life
following Jesus is about living life <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">with</i>
God. There are a lot of us who struggle with this, and it could take many
sermons to tell people all about life with God, and if you’re asking yourself,
“what does that even mean?” then you’re not alone. To me, living life with God
is about quieting my mind and my heart. I acknowledge that there is a divine
power all around me and in me and I try to adjust my disposition to be open to
that divine power. It’s not always about talking or doing certain things, but
it is about an awareness. Learning to cultivate that awareness can take a
lifetime in itself, but that’s the gist of it. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Next of these principles is to be malleable. Sometimes it’s
hard for us to recognize if God is trying to tell us something or if we’re just
arguing with ourselves. Whatever the case, it’s important to remember that God
is involved in some way, and so we need to be ready to change our hearts and
minds at any moment. If you’re like me, you’ll have found yourself in
emotionally destructive or divisive cycles. You’ll be angry and think you have
every right to be. You’ll get depressed or bitter or selfish or proud or
abrasive or rude, and it always feels logical, natural, maybe unavoidable.
Usually, it is none of these things. And so we need to affix in our minds that
we might be wrong at any time and be ready and open to changing our minds and
attitudes. You’ll often find if you can maintain this openness to correction
and readiness to shift gears, that you’re going to encounter less and less of
these cycles anyway. But it is again about awareness. We need to cultivate
awareness of ourselves, of our emotional states and of our disposition. If we
don’t, we’ll most certainly fall victim to these little traps. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Next is a simple idea that everyone knows but tends to
ignore or forget: Don’t give up. For me realization hits maybe a month later,
when I realized I got tired of trying, got stuck in a rut, started thinking,
feeling, talking and acting like none of it mattered anymore. And I look back
and wonder how I got to where I was, because I didn’t notice. But my state of
mind and life tells me that somewhere along the way I did give up. We don’t
always recognize this for what it is. We might just call it a rough spot. But
again, the issue comes down to awareness. Do you know when it is that you’re
hitting a wall? Can you tell, when things start going south? If we maintain an
awareness of where we’re at, we can intercede sooner in the process. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But this in itself requires vigilance.
Sometimes it seems like a catch 22, but hold onto the principle, Don’t Give Up,
and that should at least help.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Finally, the last principle is possibly the most important:
Grace. First, have grace for yourself. Too many Christians get bogged down in
guilt. It is certainly better to humble yourself than to exalt yourself, but
the way of Jesus was never intended to keep people in a perpetual state of
miserable shame and guilt, constantly beating our breast and begging God to
forgive us for our feeble attempts to do good. Give yourself some grace, and
give others some, too. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In my last sermon I talked about the fact that we sometimes
mistake the method for the goal. The goal, if you might recall, is to be like
Christ, bear spiritual fruit (love, joy, peace, patience, etc.), and live life
with God. There are many methods we can employ to attain this goal. But the
methods are not the goal themselves. The methods we use can help us support the
aforementioned principles, which should help us reach our goals.Since this is already running long, I'll focus on methods in my next sermon.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For now let me sum up:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It's a messy life with God. There is no secret formula for getting it all right. All we have is the goal of new life in Christ. Attaining this goal requires that we hold on to certain principles and cultivate an awareness of God and of ourselves. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you find that you go through a whole day without asking yourself how you're doing, where's God and what's he doing, or any type of question that might cultivate your awareness, then in my opinion, that's the place to start. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I'll end with a favorite quote of mine from C.S. Lewis:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
"The gods cannot speak to men face to face, til we have faces."</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A little cryptic, I know, but try to puzzle it out. Or just read the book ("Til We Have Faces").</div>
Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-21473553406676456932013-05-15T21:17:00.004-07:002013-05-15T21:17:39.051-07:00Coming SoonThis week's new sermon, entitled "It's Messy," will be ready soon. Frankly, I'm talking about how we're supposed to live with God in discipleship successfully, a question I'm hardly qualified to answer, but one which I think I have a lot to say about anyway. It's taking a lot of consideration, but I should be finished tomorrow or Friday. Thanks.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-77396926592072608082013-05-06T20:17:00.001-07:002013-05-06T20:17:36.955-07:00Discipleship Vs. Evangelism<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
I wanted to respond to some things in Sunday’s <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>sermon, because I believe there’s a lot of
stuff there worth discussing, and I have a few objections to some of the
assumptions inherent in the message.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The pastor on Sunday referred to an issue that a lot of
churches seem to have in leaning too heavily in favor of discipleship or on
evangelism, either way to the detriment of the other. In other words, it seems
like a church is either really good at evangelism and really bad at
discipleship, or vice-versa.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
assumption here is really that evangelism and discipleship can be two
essentially separate things. I see this as a false assumption which creates a
false dichotomy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We get this messed up, when we don’t fully understand what
it means to be engaged in discipleship and when we don’t have a true, wholesome
sense of the importance of “good news.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let’s first take a look at discipleship:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’m going to start with my experience of discipleship as I
grew up, because I think it’s similar to what we think of today.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The way I remember it in my church, to focus on discipleship
was to learn church doctrines, participate in bible studies and daily personal
devotions, and to understand more of God’s love and how we’re supposed to live.
There are some very good things about this understanding of discipleship. I
still believe spending time with God is essential to daily living life in his
way, and the Bible is still a great instrument for hearing God’s voice and
understanding his will. Unfortunately, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">measuring</i>
“spiritual growth” in this setting is confusing at best. There is a large
emphasis on head knowledge, doctrines and dogmas. And I’ve known enough people
who have a lot of knowledge of doctrines and a lot of smart things to say about
God and life, who have little to show for it in terms of spiritual fruit (love,
joy, peace, patience, etc.). Unfortunately, I can often put myself in that
category. Discipleship, for too many churches, is about adherence to some
understanding of truth, and can often be measured on a checklist, somewhat akin
to the Nicean Creed. Do you believe in the Trinity? Can you ever lose your Salvation?
How do you understand God’s Sovereignty? What’s going to happen in the future?
Your answers to these and other questions can often be the primary focus when
you get down to measuring your spiritual growth. When it comes to actions, we
ask: are you spending time In prayer and bible reading? Are you giving money to
the Church? Are you actively serving at a church? These are all activities that
are designed to help produce the fruit of love and kindness and gentleness and
patience, but instead they become the standard themselves. These activities
become our checklist. I read my Bible this morning. Nevermind that I went to
work and chewed out my coworkers and mocked my boss on the internet and then
got home and yelled at my kids, etc. Do I look back at my day and say that I’ve
grown spiritually, that I learned about kindness, patience, and grace?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When Jesus practiced discipleship, he lived with people. He
taught them every day, correcting them, rebuking them, eating with them, loving
them. And the things he taught them had little to do with doctrines and much
more to do with actions: love your neighbor; love your enemies; forgive your
brother every time he repents; even if it’s several times in one day; don’t
judge others, or you’re going to be judged in the same way, for the same thing;
guard your thoughts and your hearts; the first will be last—don’t put yourself
above everyone else, but be a servant instead; be ready to face persecutions
and trials; have faith, even just the faith of a mustard seed; and the list
goes on. How do we measure whether we’re living up to these standards? How do
we measure spiritual fruit? How do you measure love or peace or joy? You can’t
collect them like a bushel of apples and say, “Look! I’ve got 126 apples this
year. That’s 25 more than last year, so I must be doing pretty well.” And yet,
we do need to look at discipleship and spiritual growth more like an orchard or
a farm or a garden than the way we currently look at it, like a philosophy test
in school.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We’re going to come back to that. But for now let’s just
acknowledge that measuring our discipleship is going to be a tricky thing. It’s
not going to be black and white. It’s not going to be very mathematical.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now let’s go to evangelism. It really gets me to hear people
say that a church can be poor in discipleship, but really great with
evangelism. I have a hard time understanding what this means. And I almost
always have a deep suspicion about the nature of the evangelism taking place.
Evangelism is about “Good news.” That’s its definition. I find it hard to
believe that a people who are not growing in love, joy, peace, patience,
generosity, understanding, grace, and gentleness with one another can have any
really great thing to say to the rest of the world about any sort of Good News.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Instead, such people seem more intent on converting people
to their belief system than to sharing good news. It often becomes clear in the
nature of their message. “You’re going to hell, and you’d better believe in
Jesus if you want to go to heaven instead,” is not good news. “Human beings are
all wretched, worthless sinners in need of God’s grace,” is also not good news.
Instead of sharing good news, people who go out in the world with these views
in mind seem more interested in sharing very disturbing, troubling news. They
need to convince everyone about what bad shape they’re in before they spring
the good news that now they’d better change their ways and turn to God for
forgiveness. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Others know it’s more than that, and they really believe there is
something to be excited about, but they don’t always feel it or know what it
really is. They can say it. “It’s new life.” “it’s hope of resurrection.” “It’s
forgiveness and freedom.” But have they experienced it? Can we share about
peace with God, when we’ve never or only rarely known the peace of God that
passes all understanding? Can we share about the forgiveness and embrace of
God, if we’ve not learned to forgive our neighbors? We might have good news of
new life in Christ, but what are we really talking about if we’re not living
it? You can’t have excellent, amazing evangelism, without solid discipleship. Without
good discipleship, you have a whole lot of enthusiasm without a lot of
substance. Often you have a whole lot of empty words, and at best the
appearance of hypocrisy. There is no such thing as good evangelism without good
discipleship.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So what does this mean for us? Does this mean we don’t tell
anyone about Jesus unless we’ve somehow made it? Do we spread the good news,
only when we’ve achieved perfection? Of course that can’t be right, otherwise
nobody would ever hear about Christ. Yes, we are a work in progress. Yes, the
fruit of the spirit is going to take time, we’ll only see gradual progress, and
we will probably never know the completion of being in Christ in this life. And
yet… and yet evangelism has to be a natural outpouring of discipleship. It is
ludicrous to spread the word of abundant life without having at least some
experience of that life. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I waited tables at a restaurant, our trainers were
always diligent to give us a meal during training. Whenever the restaurant
added a new item to the menu, there would be a few days of trying it out first,
and the waiters would all get samples to taste. The reason was obvious: they
wanted us to sell the product effectively. Unless you’re a good liar, you’re
not going to be able to effectively sell a product you’ve never tried. You can’t
tell people it’s your favorite thing on the menu, if you’ve never tasted it.
When people asked about items that I hadn’t tasted, the best I could tell them
was, “yeah, lots of people like it.” Hmm… That’s not really the most hearty
endorsement. If you’re telling people about Jesus and don’t know what it means
to be forgiven or to love your neighbor or to be kind and gentle or to control
your anger, then you have the same problem as a waiter who’s never tasted the
food. Either you’re a liar… or you tell people how much other people have
benefited from knowing Jesus. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You have to be a disciple of Jesus, to live a life whose trajectory
is in the way of Jesus, if you ever want to genuinely spread good news. Earlier
I said that there’s no such thing as good evangelism with poor discipleship.
The converse is also true. You can’t have good discipleship and bad evangelism.
And I don’t mean that the discipleship is bad simply because it doesn’t include
learning to spread the word. I mean that good discipleship produces good fruit,
and good fruit wants to be shared. It doesn’t take courage to share something
wonderful. Ever since I first tasted Honeycrisp apples, I’ve been telling
people that they’re the best, that they’re the most delicious apple you can
ever try. If people disagree with me I rant about how wrong they are and have trouble
believing they’ve actually tried them. If you’re experiencing new life, the
natural result is to share it. It doesn’t take courage. So when we hesitate to
tell people about our new life with Christ, the problem is not a lack of
courage, but a lack of discipleship, which leads to a shortage of conviction.
Spreading good news is a natural outflow of experiencing good news.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And really, that’s all we’re talking about.
If you’re a disciple, then in some way, you’re experiencing good news.
Naturally, you’re going to share that with the people around you. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Think of it this way. If you’ve struggled with depression,
but you finally found a therapist that helped you and changed your life, and
then you met another person struggling with depression, would it take courage
to suggest to this person the same solution that already worked for you? No, of
course not. All it would take is a conviction that your therapy was what really
did the trick, and some enthusiasm about how your life has changed. But many of
us lack that conviction, don’t we. We’re not sure if our lives are any
different from anybody else’s, and some of us are not sure if we’re any
different than who we were. If we’ve followed Jesus since we were four years
old, what can we compare it to? Maybe our lives were never horrible, and they’ve
always been generally okay, but we still have loads of baggage: anger,
bitterness, confusion, discontent, hatred, sorrow, and all manner of issues
plaguing us, just like they plague the rest of the world. We hesitate to
evangelize, to spread good news, when we’re not sure how good it is. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The problem is not about your conviction of the truth of
your doctrines. When it’s only about doctrines, our fervor dies out. We might
dogmatically believe in this or that strain of Christianity for years and count
it as our duty to convince others of our own beliefs, but if we’re not
experiencing good news, our pursuit of conversion becomes empty and hollow. And
so it comes full circle, because it’s really about discipleship. And that’s all
about what we’re doing, how we’re living, and what we’re thinking, day after
day after day. It’s about living life with God day after day after day. And for
many of us, that’s what we want, but we don’t know how, or we lack the real
discipline necessary to make it happen. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It seems that many of us know all this, maybe instinctively.
We know that we just need more discipline. We know that we need to put our
faith in God and look to him for guidance, and for power, to live in his way. We
know that spiritual growth is not about praying elegant prayers<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>or giving powerful sermons, or going to chat
rooms and arguing about our theology. We know we just need to submit to God,
live in love and consider others’ needs as well as our own. And yet we struggle
to get there. We don’t know how to defeat complacency. We don’t know how to
keep the concerns of our daily lives from choking out our spiritual
determination. We know what to do, and we want to do it deep down inside, but
we lack the will. It is in discipleship that we truly lack courage—not evangelism.
We lack the courage to sacrifice the things in our lives that are in reality
utterly worthless. Often, I lack the will to go to bed at a decent hour or to
get up out of bed to spend some time with God before my kids wake me up. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We go on and on, wondering, “what the heck is wrong with us.”
We’re in this mess, and we all know it, and we all know that we shouldn’t be
there, that God has offered us power to overcome our failures and our weaknesses.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’m running pretty long here, so I’m going to introduce my
next topic for next week: “ It’s Messy: There’s No Formula Or Magic Key.”
Hopefully, that gets your attention without starting every word with the same
letter or something churchy like that.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But to sum up:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The balance between evangelism and discipleship is a false
dichotomy. Good evangelism can only truly flow out of good discipleship. The
truth is, a lot of us don’t really know how to do good discipleship, and when
churches try to focus on it, they don’t usually do a good job. Often they don’t
even know they’re not doing a good job. They claim to see “spiritual growth,”
but they don’t know how to measure it. So we need to really get a handle on how
to delve into life with God together, otherwise we don’t really have any good
news to talk to people about. Stay tuned for “It’s Messy”</div>
Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-75163998509238727112012-04-13T10:22:00.003-07:002012-04-13T10:56:00.492-07:00Talking PointsI have found myself increasingly irritated with the rhetoric and distractions of politics. I know it is very difficult for politicians (and the media) to sit down and simply have a discussion about issues and answer each others' arguments with rational arguments of their own, because that's not what people think wins elections. <br /><br />The most recent one I can think of is the media firestorm concerning the words of Hilary Rosen about Ann Romney. <br /><br />Now, I agree that Hilary Rosen's words were ill-chosen. It is incredibly insulting to say that someone who stays at home and raises children has "never worked a day in her life" (or his?). But why, on God's green earth, must we dwell on that small phrase, out of context, and ignore the point that Rosen was trying to make. If one listens to the whole segment, it is easy to see that, in context, even the statement itself was not supposed to be a jab at Ann Romney's choice to stay at home and raise children: Rosen wasn't calling her lazy, and she wasn't suggesting that all women should join the workforce. She was clearly saying that <span style="font-style: italic;">Mitt </span>Romney has no business seeking counsel about women's economic issues from his wife, since Ann Romney has no idea what it's like to struggle <span style="font-style: italic;">economically</span>. She didn't have to worry about how to feed her children or about scrounging up the money for a baby-sitter or about paying the rent, all while raising a family. Many women do this on their own! Many stay-at-home moms have these same concerns for their families, but Ann Romney never has.<br /><br />The only person I heard try to address these concerns, if only for a moment, was Ann Romney herself. She claims that she has been on the campaign trail, that she's been listening to the concerns of women. The real question is, does Mitt Romney's economic policies address these same concerns? Does Obama's? That is what the conversation should be about.<br /><br />Personally, I agree that it is not enough for Romney to consult his wife about these issues. He needs people around him who are actively involved in working out solutions to women's issues if he wants any claim at all to working on those. He can't cite his wife as an expert, because she's not one, despite all of her good qualities. That doesn't mean her opinions don't matter, nor is it proof that she's wrong on any of the issues. <br /><br />Of course, of course, of course, this is not the only issue where people are missing the real conversation, and Democrats do it as often as Republicans. We need some way of actually talking about these issues that gets past talking points and distracting rhetoric. Rhetoric is, in my opinion, the opposite of reasonable dialogue. It is trying to get someone to agree with you by being clever with words and knowing how to shift focus. It is not a way of winning an argument, nor is it in any way helpful in finding helpful solutions or appropriate answers.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-73466155078943242262012-03-29T13:38:00.002-07:002012-03-29T13:45:28.443-07:00'Don't Do the Dew' Challenge 5Last night, something interesting happened. <br /><br />I had already had a MD earlier in the day, but the kids had just gone to bed and I really felt like having a nice cold soda. I went and got one from the fridge, and it was cold and incredibly appealing (i don't always have cold cans, but I had put one in the fridge for the next day). I had it out on the desk with the full intention of drinking it. But when it came to actually doing the deed, I ended up just looking at it, and with great difficulty, I felt compelled to ignore it, even though I had not set that intention. After many days of convincing myself that "too much" mountain dew was something I should resist, I felt the same compulsion without meaning to. <br /><br />So, I think that's something great, and I'm looking forward to discovering more exciting results.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-25114725081624173462012-03-14T13:20:00.003-07:002012-03-14T13:45:31.121-07:00'Don't Do the Dew' Challenge 4So here I am. It's been some time now since I started. To fill in those who have not read my previous posts on "Don't do the Dew,'...<br /><br />read my previous posts on 'Don't do the Dew.' <br /><br /><br />There.<br /><br />Now,<br /><br />I'd like to share some thoughts I've had since an incident about a week ago. I was at home and I had neglected to take out my signature can of mountain dew for resisting purposes, and I had already drunk one in the late morning. So it is afternoon, and I think to myself, "Hey. Self. I kind of feel like having another Dew." Then my self gets a little uncomfortable and says, "But I thought we were limiting it to just one a day." And I think to myself. "Well, yeah, but we're not being strict about it. The point of the limit isn't to get all bogged down with rules and regulations. The whole point is to stay within reason and resist having more than one so that I don't lose control. But once in a while is alright." So my self said, "Fine. But you're not having any more than that, and you can't do this every day." "Of course," I said to myself and proceeded to grab and quickly devour another Dew. <br /><br />The second Dew was DEWlicious (Wow, I'm in a strange mood right now.), and it didn't seem like quite enough to whet my appetite. It wasn't long before I craved a third, but of course my self was adamant, and thankfully I kept myself under control.<br /><br />A couple of thoughts about this:<br /><br />First, ever since that day, and especially in the couple of days following, it has been harder to resist opening a second can of Dew. As the old expression goes, "give them an inch..." Bending the rules just that little bit has done something to my sense of control. I'm still keeping it under control, but it's harder, because something went on mentally that changed things. Maybe not everyone is like this, but if I'm committed to a certain rule, I'm able to follow it to the letter. But once I justify bending the rules just a little, something shifts and I start to recognize the rule as malleable, bendable. It suddenly changes from something solid and firm to something a little wobbly and frail. Now this could either speak to the importance of respecting rules, or to the weakness of a human mind which cannot seem to do anything in a decent, healthy and good way without some strictures. Either we need an ethic which binds us to strict rules, or we need more strength of will. So which should I implement. If it is the latter, how can I really push myself to desire what is good and healthy instead of what is destructive or unhealthy? Because that's what it's about. It's not just about resisting bad things. It's about wanting good things, too. <br /><br />Secondly, and this is interesting, I made this lapse in judgment at a time when I didn't have it right in front of me. I decided I wanted something without it being there. Every other time, when I've carried it with me and set it in front of me on the table, I've been able to resist, despite this pulling feeling borne of habit and want. But the can in front of me was also my reminder of resistance. This is something I think I like: for anyone wanting to resist something they can't seem to control, I truly believe now that a reminder is a good thing. If you are tempted by anything at all, it is easy to forget all the reasons why you shouldn't give in, but if you had a reminder right in front of you, then it can help to exert greater control over your mind. Why should you resist your temptation? If you don't know why, then I don't think you're ever going to get the strength to do it. If you forget the reasons, then you need a reminder, at least until it sinks in and your resistance has become a habit, and your goals and priorities have become ingrained in your mind. <br /><br />Those are my thoughts over the past week or so.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-53327374005868373292012-02-27T08:37:00.002-08:002012-02-27T09:15:28.070-08:00"Don't Do the Dew" Challenge 3First I wanted to explain something. I am not doing this with the point of having no soda whatsoever. I am trying to increase control over my own desires, so that I can have and do things I enjoy with reasonable moderation. I have no intention of living the life of a monk, drinking only water, waking up at the butt-crack of dawn and eating a bare minimum. But neither do I want to live the life of a glutton. I have noticed certain tendencies in myself leaning in the latter direction, and I wanted to curb those tendencies, so I can continue to live a healthy life. So I am still drinking Mountain Dew. But I am only drinking one can a day. To some that may seem excessive still, but, well, that's you. For me, one seems a reasonable goal.<br /><br />The thing is, when I first started this, I didn't have a clear idea of limits. In general I wanted to carry the can around and not drink it, but I wasn't clear with myself how much I <span style="font-style: italic;">could </span>drink. It was only clear that I wanted to drink less, and for the first few days, 1 seemed like a good number, so I allowed myself that simple indulgence. Having no strict limit seemed like something more of a challenge. That way, I knew that I could drink the can if I really wanted to, and I wouldn't be breaking any rules, per se. And that did make it harder. It became a battle between wanting another soda and increasing my capacity to resist. It really made me work those resistance muscles. But it also left the door open to be kind of a vague and purposeless exercise. <br /><br />I held a pepsi in my hand a couple days ago. I thought to myself, <span style="font-style: italic;">it's not the same as Mountain Dew. I didn't really commit to resisting it. I'd really like to drink one.</span> But then I thought about it further. What is it that I'm really doing? What is it to resist temptations, if there are no clear limits? There have been times in my life where I wanted to reduce the amount of limits I place on myself. After all, if I want to watch an extra hour of tv one day, I'd like to have the freedom to do so, once in a while. If every once in a while I want to have 2 sodas, it's not such a big deal. But what do I (and so many other people) do without those limits? If an extra hour, why not one more? If 2, why not 3? What's to stop 3 from becoming 4? At times, I would consider that it would be better merely to shift my focus. Instead of limits, I would work daily on my focus, meditating on a better way, telling myself that I really want healthy foods and orange juice. And it does help, to some extent. But without certain rules in place, I am only doing what I feel. Even with daily meditation, I am finding there is just no replacement for rigorous discipline.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-1528686500638481642012-02-22T12:32:00.002-08:002012-02-22T12:58:57.317-08:00"Don't Do the Dew" Challenge 2I have been doing this Dew Challenge for the past two days, and I wanted to write down my initial thoughts. <br /><br />First of all, I noticed right away a feeling of liberation. Some people might think that having the soda can in front of you all the time would merely serve to add unnecessary suffering to an already difficult exercise (that of curbing an "addiction"). Maybe for some that would be true. But for me it is a mental thing. Because I've decided not to drink the can of Mountain Dew, I now have motivation that I didn't have before when wanting to resist it. Had I simply said, I want to drink less, and tried not to think about it, it would have been harder for me.<br /><br />Also, the point of the exercise is to use something relatively innocuous, like soda, to practice resisting urges. I need it to be difficult in order for it to be effective, but I probably would not recommend a similar exercise to someone with tendencies toward more destructive substances, unless they first proved to be capable with an easier challenge. As for achieving my own desired ends, Challenge itself provides the motivation I need to succeed with it. <br /><br />So, back to the liberation. Obviously, one's feelings toward this challenge would be contingent upon their success with it. My first day was quite successful. I felt the urge to drink the soda many times in the day, and resisted every time. It gave me a sense of power and control over myself that is invigorating. I have realized that the benefit of this challenge is not only in the ability to say no to something you might want, but in the broader ability to decide for yourself and separate that decision from mere impulses. And isn't that what most of us want? We want to decide to exercise even when our momentary feelings say we don't really want to. We want to do things we normally wouldn't because of temporary emotions, and we want to avoid doing things we normally would do because of temporary impulses. This is not just about saying "no." It is about taking control, and I think it is exciting, even if the idea is a little silly on the surface.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-88610809924508962192012-02-22T12:09:00.003-08:002012-02-22T12:32:32.962-08:00The "Don't Do the Dew" Challenge 1I recently heard about a study that showed that the power to resist temptation improves with practice. Previous to this I always figured that the best way to resist would be to avoid temptations. If your temptation is food, avoid the temptation to eat too much by not buying very mush, or whatever you can do to decrease exposure to such feelings. But listening to this I came up with an idea. <br /><br />I like Mountain Dew, and I find that if I drink one, I typically feel the urge to drink another within a couple of hours (especially if I'm at home doing low key activities). Not only would I like to be strong enough to just say no to Mountain Dew when I feel the urge to drink one but don't think it's a very good idea, but I'd like that strength in other areas of life. <br /><br />Now, the Dew is really a small temptation. I find I can deflect it in many cases, but it is strong enough that it creates for me just the right opportunity to test out this little study for myself. My test is what I am calling the "Don't do the Dew Challenge."<br /><br />While going about my day, mostly at home or in the car on the way to the grocery store (You could do it in the office or a similar setting), I am keeping a can of Mountain Dew in front of me with the express purpose of resisting the urge to open and drink it. I will be constantly reminded of my desire for Mountain Dew by seeing it in front of me throughout the day, and this will give me practice in resisting temptation. The purpose is to increase my self control overall and see if the practice proves beneficial, not only in curbing my habit of doing the Dew, but also in resisting other temptations in life.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-37272266527379103662011-09-30T19:27:00.000-07:002011-09-30T20:26:22.515-07:00Expendables - The Worship ExperienceHaving established the groundwork for rethinking church activity/methodology, I wanted to jump into an element of church which has both bothered me and enriched my life throughout the years. This element is what we have commonly come to know as the Worship Experience. The tradition really goes back to the book of Acts, I believe, where it is said that the early followers of "the Way" sang songs of praise together. It goes back further than that, of course, but in terms of documented history of the Christian tradition, we might as well say it was there at the beginning. People sang together in worship to God.<br /><br />This could be a touchy subject for many people. I have known of not a few Christians who have left churches over a change in worship style or simply because they disliked the music (I am not arguing here that this is a bad reason to leave a church - that is a different discussion entirely - I am simply pointing out that the worship experience seems to be very important to a lot of people). Lots of people go into the worship experience (ie. congregational music) with certain expectations. Some want to feel a sense of reverence, like they're coming before God himself, in awe and trembling. Others may want to feel reassured and calm. Still others prefer to pour their hearts out in thanksgiving, or petition, or even self deprecation. For the most part, people are looking for a certain kind of experience, a certain kind of feeling, and most seem to want to reach this experience in a certain way. <br /><br />These desires people have for pouring out their hearts, or for reassurance, or for trembling awe, or whatever else one might look for in worship music, are often laudable desires, and the experiences they have are often positive and healthy (not always, but often). What troubles me about them is, first, that they are for most people static, unchangeable expectations, and second, that they are treated as ideals in themselves in place of the highest ideal of living in love, faith, and hope through Christ. Again, this is touchy. I will concede that drawing closer to a very real God is perhaps the essence of living in love and attaining to these qualities, and furthermore, I see the value in these experiences towards reaching these ends. The problem is once more that we've treated the method, and even sometimes the style, as the essential element, as the weight-bearing, indispensable pillars. <br /><br />As I have fleshed this out, the essential element of the Worship Experience is drawing closer to God. After all, I think we can admit that the whole point of being a Christian is to have God in our lives. Thus, we want to be able to come before him, to talk with him, to worship him, to pray to him and to experience him. But the Worship Experience, as can easily be seen, is only one mere method of this, not the essential element. There are many ways to draw near to God. There are many ways to experience him. Singing songs of praise is a very good way, but it is not the only way, and it is only good if it is done in light of our true essential element. Too often, people practice the method for the express purpose of getting out of it what they've experienced before: an emotional high or a feeling of excitement. Granted, there is nothing wrong with these things, but without placing them in the proper context of drawing near to a very real and personable God and learning to live in love through a humble encounter with him. If we forget the essential element, we might begin to enter a worship experience with a sense of self-importance or pride in our abilities, even pride in our own humility. <br /><br />There are many ways to draw near to God, as I have said. Singing songs of praise is one, Prayer is another. Service, camaraderie, and virtually any good thing can bring a person before God's presence. And here is what I think is the most important point throughout this whole conversation I seem to be having with myself: Churches need to act according to their spiritual needs, not according to strict methodology. Perhaps the same thing will be effective for a long time in some contexts, but without the essential elements of our meetings together, how can we even know? If we don't have our eye on the goal, on what it really means to live life together in the way of Jesus, how can we even begin to measure whether our teaching or our worship is effective? People can argue all they want about the merits of one teaching style over another, or of one worship style over another, but unless a church learns to be malleable in its application of activities, it will always and only be a specifically catered, production-oriented, Sunday Morning Show. Our activities should be a reflection of the spiritual needs of our community. If the people in our congregations need to learn to be humble, one approach might be to give a sermon on humility. This is a step in the right direction, but even further is to lay down very careful thought about the most effective way to teach people to be humble. Perhaps taking everyone to a homeless shelter for Sunday morning would help teach humility. A sermon may still have an important place for many contexts, and I admit it is the easier choice to facilitate, but our church communities need to be growing not just watching. What if what your congregation really needs is a time for everyone to come to church and be silent for an hour and a half? What if what they really need is a whole morning devoted to getting to know one another? What if they need to sing songs all morning? A church methodology must be designed to fulfill needs, and nobody's needs are static. A person might need reassurance one day, humility the next. One might need to pour their hearts out one morning and listen to a thoughtful sermon the next. <br /><br />In closing I will say this: an effective and meaningful church needs to be a goal-oriented church, and it needs to know what the most important goals are and direct their energy and activity toward meeting those goals. Know what the essential elements are of reaching those goals, and you're that much closer to being able to think outside the box, and to establish a community that is growing and learning together.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-51020455695501633292011-09-24T09:30:00.000-07:002011-09-24T09:56:29.283-07:00Expendables - SermonsHaving laid out an initial framework for thinking about how we "do church," I'd like to explore further the kind of changes that can or should be made and the kind of "sacred cows" that many churches keep, refusing to let go, even though they want to do things differently.<br /><br />All of this depends on what our true goal is. In my opinion, the goal is for God's people to live in love, faith and hope through the Spirit of Jesus Christ. That goal could be embellished some, but that is at the core, since these are the core lasting qualities of God's goodness in the world. So, previously I likened the walls of a structure to the method of how we do things. The support beams and the weight-bearing studs are the essential elements. We don't necessarily need all the walls in place for the structure to stand, but we can do anything without the essential elements. These elements must only be gleaned from our goal, not just from personal tastes, what we enjoy better, or what makes a better show. These factors might influence the method, but they should never influence the essential elements, and if they do, then we have a problem. <br /><br />Therefore, we have to answer the question: what are the essential elements?<br /><br />Well in order for anyone to do anything, they have to at some point <span style="font-style: italic;">learn</span> to do it. Thus I will start with an element every church seems to cherish: Teaching. This element might better be called "Learning," since that is what is really at stake, but it could also be called "Discipleship." After all, the real question isn't whether or not there is teaching going on, but whether or not people are learning anything. So, I think we can agree that Learning is essential. Without Learning, we tend to stay much the same people we used to be, and that is counterproductive to living in love and faith and hope. <br /><br />The problem with Learning is that the church has morphed the essential into the classic "Sunday morning Sermon." It is important that we don't confuse the essentials with the methods. There are many different ways of learning and many different kinds of things to learn, some action-oriented, others thought and feeling-oriented. A "sermon," or in other words, a "lecture," is only one way of teaching someone. But in fact it is not really the best way of teaching anyone, it is simply the easiest for the teacher. Very little interaction and accountability, very little personal investment is involved on the part of the audience to a sermon. In this case, much of the church has invested loads of energy into what I would call a "sacred cow." They've turned the sermon, the lecture, into the primary activity of the church, into one of the most revered elements of the "sunday morning show." If you don't think people regard this as sacred, try suggesting that we do without a sermon on a sunday morning. If it is a special event, that might be fine, but too many people consider it one of the most important parts of church. They've confused it with the crucial support beam of learning, they've misplaced the load-bearing studs of discipleship, and set up what might really be a rather inconvenient and ineffective wall inside their structure. <br /><br />In many ways actual learning, actual discipleship and changing of a life, becomes secondary to the method. For many people, I think this is just a lack of insight: it's just a default position. Sermons on Sunday morning are what we know. To many of us, that's simply what church <span style="font-style: italic;">is.</span> When they talk about doing things differently, they think of changing the Sermon somehow, to make it more interesting, more exciting, to get people to like it more, and yes, many people want to get the sermon back to actually making disciples. But not very many people will think of it as expendable, just like many homeowners often don't think of any of their walls as expendable. If you don't have strong remodeling experience, you might want something different, but not even realize that big changes are possible. You might be very unsatisfied and even conclude that the only solution is to sell your house and trade it for another. <br /><br />Many people don't realize that most methods have been handed down to us by human beings. The essentials are God's area: discipleship, connection, unity, growth, service, humility, joy. We can't confuse the methods that have been handed down to us with the essential elements of the Kingdom of God. We need a firm foundation, and some steady pillars, and many people don't recognize the difference between these and the methods and systems in place throughout the church.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-23752801024548976382011-09-21T08:14:00.000-07:002011-09-21T08:41:23.406-07:00EssentialsWhen people have talked about reforming church, it used to be that they reformed doctrines or teachings or possibly just teaching styles. Sometimes its a change of focus from one Christian theme to another. More recently, people have tried to "do church different," and to me it has seemed that this means merely trying different things, maybe adding some liturgy or planning more outreach events or service projects and sometimes changing up Sunday morning activities. <br /><br />But I have noticed that even among churches who want to do things different, there are certain "sacred cows," and there are activities that we still regard as central and essential to our existence. It is my belief that a lot of these are simply default choices, based on what our impressions are of what church is supposed to be, and how it is supposed to go, but in my opinion, these activities still do little to get us away from the "Sunday morning show" dilemma. We say we want an interactive, engaging time at church, but we tend to stick to the old models. We take the old worship time and we update it with the latest technology and musical styles, powerpoint, sound systems, etc., but it is still the same model. We take the old teaching times and we update them with innovative media encounters and we spice them up a bit, but in general, they are the same model. <br /><br />I am not suggesting that there is something wrong or inferior with old models. However, there is a problem if we treat these models as the core essentials of church in and of themselves. Church reformers of today will get nowhere unless they understand fully what the essentials are, and begin to treat everything else as what it is: decorative. If a church believes in teaching, then they need to understand that the learning and discipleship are the essentials, while the "sunday morning sermon" is the decor. It is merely the structure around which you choose to organize the essential element of teaching. There are other ways to teach and learn. <br /><br />I prefer to liken it to a house: A house has certain essential support beams. It has pillars and beams that cannot be knocked out without upsetting the integrity of the structure. But many of the walls can be torn down, while new walls can be added. As long as the pillars and support beams are in place, then with a little work, you can make your house look however you want to suit your needs. Unfortunately, many people look at their house and try to change the way they organize the room, putting chairs in different corners, when what they really want is to knock out a wall or add a new little room or expand a bathroom, whatever it is that would really suit their needs. A church who wants to do things differently must take a look at the structure of their meetings and decide if the house is designed to suit their true goals. In order to this they need to know what their true goals are and they need to know what the essential elements of reaching their true goals might be and then restructure the walls to meet the needs of an ever changing population.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-77572046854028684232011-08-18T12:17:00.000-07:002011-08-18T12:38:31.390-07:00"Super" TwistedI just finished the movie "Super." Before renting it from netflix, I thought it would be some silly spoof on super-hero movies, but the reality was nothing I ever would have guessed. The reality was an incredibly twisted, disturbing, horrifying, bloody, violent, sad and sometimes funny mess.
<br />
<br />At first it just seemed lame, and while there is no doubt the movie went for shock value when it comes to sex and violence - enough to make Cassie quit watching less than halfway through - there turned out to be more to it than just blood, angst and a host of inanities designed to draw pity for the anti-hero played by Rainn Wilson.
<br />
<br />What I disliked: the movie was at many times... stupid. Over-the-top scenes of people being ridiculous gave it an almost vicious sadness. Though this very quality made the movie worthwhile at the end, it made it very difficult to care about the characters, relate to them, or even like them at all.
<br />
<br />Next it was way too bloody and violent. Again, this gave the movie a certain disturbing quality that may appeal to a twisted or perverse audience, but it was uncomfortable and hard to watch. The sexual scenes had the same problem.
<br />
<br />What I liked: the movie ended on a surprising, incredibly uplifting and moving note. There seemed to be no point to the movie except to revel in mediocrity, sadness, and violence, but it turned out much better than expected.
<br />
<br />Above all, I believe this move had amazing <span style="font-style: italic;">acting</span>. Rainn Wilson showed an incredible depth and range of feeling, and though his actions seemed over the top, his delivery was always believable and engaging. The other cast of characters were likewise brilliant. Ellen Page was amazing in her awkward excitement and sexually frustrated madness. I also liked Liv Tyler and Kevin Bacon's performances better than in many of their other movies.
<br />
<br />That being said, "Super" is not for the faint of heart. It's not even for the average person. It was disturbing and sick, sad and ridiculous, and... in the end... heartwarming.
<br />Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-81909133907497220772011-08-03T11:16:00.000-07:002011-08-03T12:12:18.788-07:00Men are from where now?I've spent some time in the last couple of months reading "Men are from Mars/Women are from Venus," as suggested to me by various people. I have not yet finished the entire book, but I wanted to present my thoughts on what I've said so far.<br /><br />First let me say what I like about the book. First and foremost, it is a book that encourages spouses to get along. It tells men and women to listen to their mates, to forgive, to be gracious and understanding, supportive and accepting. These qualities, when they play out well n real-life circumstances are laudable and form the framework for success in any relationship. So there is little doubt in my mind that if people follow the advice in this book they will learn to get along with their spouses for a good portion of the time. <br /><br />That being said, from what I have read there is little evidence actually based on scholarly research that supports his views on men and women being in any way <span style="font-style: italic;">biological</span>. The author apparently got his doctorate from a since debunked university, which was shut down for practically giving out doctorates to people online. His views take established stereotypes and validates them as natural and even necessary, innate differences between men and women. Psychological research has not found this to be the case. John Gray's conclusions are at best a personal leaning about a somewhat uncertain subject in the battle between nature and nurture. There are often biological factors for different personalities and activities, but science has not found any of those factors to necessarily be linked to gender. Thus Gray lands on the side of nature, whilst giving sociological influences (nurture) only a cursory nod. <br /><br />Here's the essential dilemma and the crucial difference between Gray's biological approach and a more plausible sociological approach: if our gender stereotypes are indeed natural and necessary, then it is only reasonable that we accept them, understand them, and validate them. Gray's approach does just that, encouraging couples to respect their differences and listen to each other in light of an understanding of those differences instead of expecting each other to be more like them. A sociological understanding would suggest to us that the factors involved in our stereotypical habits are external, and can therefore be changed by a change in mental awareness and modifying external factors in helpful ways. In short, the biological approach, though encouraging forgiveness, gentleness and understanding, leaves little room for change and personal growth. A sociological approach, I would argue, need not dispense with the forgiveness and understanding - recognizing that it is difficult for anyone to rise above centuries of socialized behaviors - but also encourages men and women to strive to become better people. <br /><br />Let's take a couple of stereotypical examples. When I read Mars/Venus, I find it difficult not to sneer at some of the examples he uses for both men and women. His women are whining, complaining, needy, dependent nagging housewives with no control over their emotions who need constant validation and have little self-esteem. His men are lazy, distant, selfish, easily offended, egotists, who require constant admiration and have no feelings. This is, of course, a caricature of Gray's depiction, but as caricatures go, true to form. In Gray's view, these character failings are not failings at all, but rather are natural outcomes of the differences between men and women, and the only solution is to accept them, understand them, and try our best to modify our behavior just enough to leave room for them. <br /><br />Take, for instance, a woman's tendency to complain. John Gray claims that a woman needs to complain about her day. That in order to feel better, she needs to talk about all her problems and complaints to someone who will listen. A man, he says, will take these complaints as accusations that he is not doing enough to make her happy, and will either get defensive or try to fix the problem, which is supposedly not what she wants. <br /><br />I find this example frustrating, because what we have here is a problem of a woman complaining too much. Let's give some leeway to women who may be sociologically engineered to talk more than men. Talk away. Talk abut your day. Talk about all the things that interest you and all that was important or meaningful during your day. But if it is mostly complaining, this is what most of the world would call a character flaw. I cannot believe that it is natural and necessary to complain about things. In fact, I believe very strongly that it is counterproductive, stress-inducing, and habit-forming, to complain frequently. Someone who complains a lot, whether male or female, has simply not listened to the simple ancient wisdom that says "look on the bright side." Complaining, might feel like a release for a moment, but people who complain almost always find more to complain about and very soon. This is not a natural activity based on biological needs, this is a bad habit and needs to be changed.<br /><br />The stereotypes for men have the same issue at heart. Gray claims they are natural, biological needs, when they are really bad habits. He claims that men need to escape into their cave to deal with their problems. They have to become distant and unresponsive in order to sift through their dilemmas. Like a woman's sociological tendency to talk a lot, a man's tendency to escape and deal with things inwardly is not a bad thing in and of itself. Giving some leeway for these sociological tendencies, lets say, "sure," Let your wife know that you need some space for a moment, go and think, have some alone time, process inwardly for a while. But Gray expands this idea into what I believe is a simple habit of laziness. A man, he says, will stay in the cave as long as he has not found an answer to his problems, and he will often need to take a break from thinking and just watch sports, turning his attention to other problems to distract from the his own problems which he is having trouble solving. Thus turning the stereotypical behavior of the unresponsive, uncaring, sports-obsessed man into a biological need. The solution in Mars/Venus is for women to allow him to retreat into his cave, watch sports, work on projects... ignore her... and be there ready for when he comes out. <br /><br />First of all, I personally enjoy dealing with problems inwardly, and I think there is nothing wrong with that. I also believe that anyone, man or woman, who prefers to deal with problems outwardly, should be validated in that pursuit. But just like complaining about your problems is a bad habit, so is avoiding them. Distraction may help you feel better for a while, but allowed to continue unchecked, you could be distracting yourself for the rest of your life. If you have to process inwardly, go process inwardly (and let your spouse know what you're doing), but distracting yourself, though it might feel good for a moment, is not solving the problem nor will it lead you to a solution. If you are avoiding problems, you are feeding into a cycle just as much as someone who merely complains about them. If you must talk about problems, talk about them constructively. If you must retreat to solve your problems, use that retreat to really focus on solutions. Otherwise, our stereotypical man is just feeding into the bad habits that are expected of him (ignoring his wife).<br /><br />This is really just a taste, and I might write more later. But that is the gist of it. I wish to contend that men and women in relationships should both strive to be better: better communicators, better people, better spouses. Most of Gray's examples of miscommunication, which he claims are different languages, are just people communicating badly, who should be taught to communicate better.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-50490641788212943042011-07-18T09:07:00.000-07:002011-07-18T09:08:25.883-07:00New LookThis is my new background. Original design. Quite nice, I'd say.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-9663259688933227922011-07-11T12:07:00.001-07:002011-07-11T12:39:55.661-07:00FeelingsSince I wrote least time about joy and happiness, I've been wanting to explore the topic of feelings a little more. It's a weird thing I've noticed in our culture that we seem to harbor our feelings like prized possessions, which no one can touch or devalue, and at the same time we theoretically hold feelings in general in contempt. We love reason and sound thinking, but if anyone tries to tell us that they way we feel is silly or unnecessary, then (with the exception that we then feel shame for our feelings) lash out as if they had attacked the ground we walk on. It's just plain weird. <br /><br />First of all: the importance of feelings. There is a misconception left over from the Enlightenment era that feelings are inferior to reason, to ideas and thoughts. People fear being led astray by their feelings, yet they trust their thoughts. To me this is putting the cart before the horse. Everything you feel is a result of something you are thinking, whether consciously or subconsciously. If you get mad when someone cuts you off on the highway, it is because you instantly think something awful about that person or about what he did. You're thinking that he shouldn't have done that and that you wish people would treat you with more respect and that they would learn to drive. All your anger explodes out from those simple thoughts. If you repeat these thought reactions, then the feelings occur quicker and more easily. The thought patterns in your brain solidify so that it becomes your natural reaction. Within nanoseconds, a signal goes through your brain telling your emotional centers to fire some anger. <br /><br />We tend to blame our feelings as if we were doing something without thinking. Technically, we were feeling something, without controlling our thoughts, but thoughts were still streaming around. So to say that our feelings are unreliable is really only to say that our thoughts were unreliable first. The old formula went that we felt a certain way and then our sound reasoning could come in and make better sense of it, and our emotions needed to be controlled so that our thoughts could have freedom to do the wonderful work that they do. In reality our thoughts need to be controlled so that our feelings can do the wonderful work that they do, namely making life enjoyable and fulfilling for our selves and for the rest of the people on the road with us.<br /><br />Now, this leads directly into the problem that people have with letting go of their feelings. Whenever we feel a certain way, we always feel like we have the <span style="font-style: italic;">right </span>to feel that way. If we are angry about something, it might be stupid and it might be small, but it's the way we <span style="font-style: italic;">feel</span>, and so we don't <span style="font-style: italic;">feel</span> as if anyone can say anything to degrade it. We all act this way, male and female (no matter what John Gray says). If we feel angry, we know that we are supposed to feel angry, no matter if anyone tells us to calm down and relax. When I get upset about getting cut off on the road, I can list several reasons in a span of several seconds, why I not only have the right but the <span style="font-style: italic;">obligation</span> to feel upset. <br /><br />Under the old paradigm, we might have said that our feelings were getting in the way of letting reason do its job. We might have said that if only we could suppress our feelings, we could just go about our business without the tedium of getting angry, because we'd be fine with life under the cold calculating strictures of reason. The problem is that our reasoning is not cold and calculating. For every thought there is a feeling, and if there is an angry feeling, it is coming from an angry thought. To harbor our feelings as if they are unassailable, uncontrollable animals, is silly. We are all thinking beings, and if we let our feelings control us, it is because we are not willing to pay attention to why we have those feelings in the first place. Feelings are not something to be suppressed and they are not something to be harbored. They are to be formed and shaped by forming proper thoughts. If I have three reasons why I should be angry at the car that cut me off, then what I really need to do is take a second look at those reasons and figure out if those are valid reasons, and if there aren't other reasons that would invalidate them or at least balance them out so that I don't have to feel angry. None of us like to be told to calm down and relax. It seems like an attack on our feelings and an invalidation of something we tend to think is beyond our control. But it isn't. <br /><br />We need to start treating feelings as being interwoven with our thoughts. Taking control of our feelings starts with taking control of our thoughts. And <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span> starts with paying attention. Is your life going to be over because the car in front of you makes you 3 minutes late to work? Do you really know the guy who cut you off doesn't have a good reason? Is the sun going to stop shining because the car in the next lane didn't see you? Are you really supposed to be the center of everyone else' universe? Put things into perspective. If it helps, put into a cosmic perspective. This is why the bible calls our troubles "light and momentary" - and this referred to heavy persecution. Put into perspective, it's almost never as bad as it seems, and if your feelings are telling you differently, it's because there's some faulty thinking floating around. Stop treating feelings like sacred cows. Let them go, and allow your thoughts to come under scrutiny.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-31192594758789740632011-06-26T18:28:00.000-07:002011-06-26T20:11:21.811-07:00Joy and HappinessThis morning in Church we had a sermon on the difference between "joy" and "happiness." Let me start out by saying that I believe in the basic message that was preached today, which is that we don't want to settle for a momentary happiness that is dependent on our circumstances, but we want a lasting and enduring joy that flows up from within and remains throughout all circumstances we may face in life. <br /><br />That being said, I have to say that for some time now I have found this distinction between "joy" and "happiness" (very common in many churches) is at best unnecessary and sometimes rather deconstructive to our thinking, and I wanted to lay out some thoughts about it which have troubled me. <br /><br />First of all, I would argue, many non-religious people in the US might use the term happiness to describe something like what Christians mean by "joy." When people say that they "just want to be happy," I think most of them are talking about a deep satisfaction, inner peace, fulfillment and overall good feeling, which lasts throughout all of life's circumstances." Christians, as far as I can understand, call this "joy", and often differentiate it from "happiness." Non-religious types might call it "true happiness" or possibly "lasting happiness." There may be some who mean by "I just want to be happy" that they only want to fulfill their momentary desires and feel a continual rush of positive emotion based on some exciting experience or other, but I do not think this is what most people mean. I think almost everyone is looking for something lasting, enduring. Thus, when we try to make a distinction, it is worthy of note that the rest of the world is shaking their heads, wondering what we're talking about.<br /><br />Secondly, the distinction between happiness and joy can lead to some critical judgments against people who are actually looking for the same thing we are. Some Christians can look with scorn on those who are looking for "happiness" as if they're willing to settle for something less wonderful and desirable. Now if they accepted the same distinction, then that would be true, but since they don't, they sometimes end up getting criticized for a semantic issue, which does no good to anyone. Now many may not openly or even consciously think that way, but feelings of superiority tend to set in regardless over a willingness to forsake personal happiness and live in squalor, poverty, and abjection, all along claiming a deep and lasting joy that is so different from what the world thinks of as happiness. Now this is really just an extension of what is a normal pitfall in the faith (pride in one's own faith), but I do think the belief in the distinction heightens its danger.<br /><br />Now let us return to the actual semantic discussion. Happiness, I think people pretty much understand. We get this feeling of satisfaction. We smile. We laugh. We're excited. Maybe we're crying because it is an experience of emotion that can override our inhibitions if it is strong enough. In the church, people tend to connect this idea with circumstantial happiness. It tends to happen momentarily and only in response to certain circumstances. When alternate, less desirable circumstances come along, the feeling disappears and another replaces it. And so we have pastors preaching from the pulpit about the nature of "happiness" being momentary, fleeting, and completely dependent on circumstances. <br /><br />Then we get to "joy," a quality that quickly becomes vague, nebulous, and indefinite. From the pulpit, pastors teach that it is something deeper and not dependent on circumstances, and that no matter what is happening around you, it can be accessed and remain, despite difficulty and hardship. I laud the teaching that we should begin to attain this kind of quality, but in making it different and distinct, separate from the feeling of happiness, I find myself confused as to its actual definition and often wonder how people know if they really have it or not. <br /><br />When I ask people these questions, I don't seem to get straight answers. Is joy a feeling? Well, lots of Christians seem to think no (for the aforementioned reasons about the fleeting nature of feelings like happiness). And yet, when I insist that in order to experience joy, if must at some point be <span style="font-style: italic;">felt</span>, most Christians seem to agree. If it can be felt, then is the feeling really a <span style="font-style: italic;">different</span> feeling from happiness, or is it truly the <span style="font-style: italic;">same</span> feeling, only deeper or more profound. If it is <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> a feeling, then what is it? Is it an attitude? If so, why don't we just call it a good attitude? Is it a disposition? If so... what does that mean? I cannot seem to get a straight or definitive answer about what it actually is. And if it is a feeling or even if it is something else but you can still somehow feel it, then is it a different sort of feeling than mere happiness, and how so? If it is a lasting, enduring feeling, then can you stop feeling it? If it is something else, that goes on even while we're feeling grumpy, pissed off, anxious, or bitter, then what good is it? Is it just a belief about life that has no impact on how we feel? If it doesn't have an impact on how we feel in the moment, then is it really a belief and is it really doing any good. To me, it all seems rather nebulous. And I think this is why non-religious people wonder what the heck we're talking about when we mention joy as if it is something other than happiness, because we can't seem to tell them what it is or what it feels like. <br /><br />So then, what's the point of making this distinction. I believe the point is one that can easily be made without making the distinction between the two words. Namely, that instead of looking for lasting happiness in short-term circumstances, we should root ourselves and our minds in Christ and find enduring, lasting happiness, born of an attitude of trust and hope and love and shining through every experience of hardship, loss, or pain. It means we turn our difficulties into challenges, our sorrows into smiles, and our losses into opportunities, and all of this involves what I think is the feeling that the rest of the world identifies as "happiness," only deeper, more meaningful and long lasting.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-44351272070172909652011-05-23T13:16:00.000-07:002011-05-23T13:21:34.784-07:00N.T. WrightI've decided I need to spend more time listening to/reading this guy.<br /><br />This particular video reveals a remarkable ability to cut through our cultural paradigms and address questions clearly and honestly, without bias or personal/cultural baggage.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a></a><a href="http://youtu.be/3BP1PpDyDCw">N.T.Wright on Adam & Eve</a>Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-1870047340277137302011-05-07T10:03:00.000-07:002011-05-07T10:51:37.930-07:00Further thoughtsI was searching online for peoples' thoughts on various matters when I came across a little religious series on YouTube, which further articulated the points of my previous post, but which came to different conclusions, and I wanted to mull them over here.<br /><br />This video likened church doctrine to a pick-up game of basketball, in which everyone had different interpretations of the rules. These different interpretations caused fights and quarrels to break out all through the "game," in which no one could agree on where the lines were or anything regarding the rules of the game. Some played with a free-throw line in a different spot or no line at all. Some played with no out-of-bounds. Traveling or double-dribble was not an issue for some. The whole game was a mess and it wasn't fun for anyone.<br /><br />I like this analogy - up to a certain point - because it illustrates what I was saying before about the state of affairs in the church today. Interestingly, their conclusion (I did not hear them address any criticism of this conclusion) was that people in the church need to basically buckle down and learn to interpret scripture properly, so that everyone can understand the "rule book" and agree to "play the game" together the same way. This is where the analogy goes off kilter for me and where I disagree with their assessment. <br /><br />They make a couple of assumptions in their analogous commentary on the church, and the main one is that the Bible as we know it is some sort of a "rule book." I've heard this idea - grew up with it actually - and it is a very popular notion that the Bible is a precise sort of manual for life or a letter direct from God to his people where he lays out exactly what we're supposed to believe, do and be. The problem is, I have found little or no evidence supporting this view. I've read the Bible a few times, and I have a Biblical studies degree. This does not make me an expert, but I think it is enough to make some intelligent observations (assuming I'm an intelligent guy). The Bible doesn't read like a rule book, unless you're reading Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and part of Exodus. The Torah (the first five books of the OT, also known as "the Law") is really the only part of the Bible that reads this way, where God explicitly sends a message to his people laying out exactly what they are to do or not do. Only in this situation then would the vast wealth of rabbinic commentary be accurately likened to interpreting the rule book. The rest is stories, histories, letters, prophecies, parables, poetry, and scattered teachings.<br /><br />Teachings are not necessarily about rules and exact do's and don'ts. The words of Jesus in the gospels do not spell out a concise list of steps, and even the more rigorous theological meanderings of Paul are contextual corrections for specific situations. It is easier to interpret leviticus, because it reads like a straightforward list of how to live with God in ancient Israel. Don't eat shrimp. If you do, leave the camp for a few days. present sacrifices in this place in this way, and don't get it wrong or try to do it somewhere else. Don't worship other gods. Practice the Sabbath. Despite possible variations in practice and modifications involving further specification, these are <span style="font-style: italic;">rules</span>, and they are fairly straightforward. Jesus didn't often teach <span style="font-style: italic;">rules</span>. The taught principles. He and Paul and the apostles in the NT corrected aberrant behavior and yes, they often corrected misguided or destructive theology. But a set of beliefs is not a set of rules and there is no perfect interpretations of those set of beliefs, even if you adhere to the idea that none of them ever got it wrong when they wrote the words that eventually ended up in our Bible. <br /><br />One other thought I had is that this mess of religious debate and strife might be a strong argument in favor of the hierarchy of Roman Catholocism or eastern Orthodox churches. If you have people "in charge" who are responsible for interpretation and theological explanations, then you might not have the big protestant mess, so to speak. While this argument is more utilitarian (and my views often lean utilitarian anyway), I do not believe they hold up under a critical look at history. For one, I believe the hierarchical systems of the past couple millennia have done more harm than good. The religious authority of the pope and of bishops quickly turned to quests for political power and the corruption, greed and fear that led to the crusades and the inquisition. Religious authority was no protection against false teachings and may have harbored a host of them while burning at the stake any who disagreed. Religious authority got us nowhere and such corruption gave rise to the Reformation in the first place, a movement which began as a fight against corruption, but without that centralized authority, quickly turned into a quagmire of various teachings and debates, sometimes resulting in outright bloodshed. <br /><br />This failure of authority to uphold moral standards might be enough to undermine its reliability in terms of accurate interpretation of sacred texts, but furthermore, it puts the mistakes of the many (multiple strains of Christianity) into the mistakes of the few (centralized authority). Who's to say that errors of one man or a few people would be better or worse than the errors of many? One might argue that a sort of competition in scholastic interpretation could provide an innate check and balance system. If no one was arguing with each other, we might just stray complacently into a theological void. Debate brings out rigorous, disciplined study, and I do believe that there are several out there who have contributed nicely to that process. But we still have the same problems outlined in the basketball analogy. Everyone's arguing about the rules, and so we end up just angry and confused.<br /><br />This is why I can understand when Brian MacLaren says lets just put a moratorium on the homosexual debate and just not talk about it for five years. Or when people like Doug Pagitt try to undermine arguments themselves by rephrasing the questions. I think these people recognize that because of our arguments about "the rules" we've stopped playing altogether. We need to stop thinking of the Bible as a rule book that no one can interpret correctly, and start living. We're trying to live in the way of Jesus: giving to the poor, loving our neighbor, showing mercy and compassion instead of judgment. Instead we're heaping judgment on each other and passing around verbal abuse like it's candy. Knowing the "truth" about calvinism vs. armenianism will not help you love your neighbor. Knowing what heaven and hell look like will not help you show compassion to the poor. Having the answers does not help you "take up your cross." I am all for serious intellectual study, but I think treating the Bible like something that it isn't has pushed us into being something that we're not.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-79329216622121912452011-05-04T12:35:00.000-07:002011-05-04T13:38:05.336-07:00A Look at InerrancyFor some time I have pondered the what many in Christian churches refer to as the the doctrine of Inerrancy: this is the idea that the Bible, the canon of scripture as we know it throughout Christianity, has no errors in it and is all fully and %100... true. <br /><br />I'd like to steer the conversation, right from the get-go, away from questions of what one might mean by true, as that is a different, though related subject. <br /><br />For some time I have looked at the apparent contradictions in the Bible and briefly (probably too briefly) assessed the varying views on what is really going on in the writings of Paul, the apostles, and the gospel narrators, plus the breadth of literature found in the Hebrew Scriptures, and I have to confess that I at last find myself baffled by the idea of "Inerrancy."<br /><br />This is not to say that I cannot understand the desire for systematic theology to be able to meld together words and passages into succinct ideas that form an interlocking structure of truth that we can rely on and rest comfortably in. I do. I really understand that. I know the seductiveness that a promise of complete solidity and reliability carries. But we have somehow staked our claim on ideas that we haven't fully explored, and I find that disconcerting. <br /><br />In recent weeks, many in the church have been intent on the conversation raised by Rob Bell and probably enhanced by John Piper concerning the nature of the afterlife: heaven, hell, God's judgment, God's love, etc. Many come to this conversation with assumptions about the words of the Bible that may or may not be... Biblical? More importantly, they may not line up with the intentions of Jesus or of the apostles or of, dare I say, God (don't nit-pick and call me out on redundancy). So I'd like to lay out some of the important issues regarding this doctrine of Inerrancy. <br /><br />1) Let's take a look, briefly, at the formation of the Bible itself as canon (more specifically, the NT). After Jesus ascended and the apostles spread the word (or the gospel, as they knew it), there were a couple hundred years or more of, more or less, stories and teachings being handed around. These stories include written accounts, possibly as early as 40 years after Jesus, as well as oral traditions. In this space of time, (between Jesus and about 300 AD), church leaders began to not only compile these stories into collections, but to interpret them and to expound on the nature of God's work on earth through Christ and by extension through the church. It was not until the time of Constantine that a group of church leaders got together and decided which of these stories and letters were going to be part of the "canon." Until that time, there were a couple of versions of canonical work proposed by various leaders, and there were a lot of strains of early Christianity, often debating and espousing their own interpretations of the "truth." Finally in this council, the bishops of the church decided what was in and what was out, not only in terms of canon, but in terms of acceptable interpretations. <br />(please keep in mind that I am not thoroughly researching this at the time, so my facts may not be authoritative, though they are the best I can do as I dredge them up from my memory, and I believe the gist of it all is at the very least pertinent, if not %100 reliable, which ironically relates to my views about scripture).<br /><br />2) From this brief history, we can conclude a couple of things which I find pertinent. First, if you believe in the canon of scripture as it stands and in its authority over Christian life and teaching, then you are putting your trust, not only in the words of the bible, but in the decisions of the council that compiled the canon. If you are going to put your trust in this council, you might want to confirm that you believe in the integrity of the men who were there and the intent with which is was called and carried out (I am not arguing that anyone should lean one way or another on those issues). The question of whether or not God wanted a cohesive dogma and a definitive canon of writings to help define that dogma is rarely questioned by most Christians that I know. Clearly most of the bishops at the time (remember, already a couple hundred years after Christ) believed this was necessary, but then a lot had changed in the Roman culture and in the church over time. Paul may have had a keen interest in "sound doctrine," but did God? We take these questions for granted, because we are told not to question the validity of<span style="font-style: italic;"> <span style="font-style: italic;">Sola Scriptura</span></span>, the sole authority of scripture. Well, if you believe that the Biblical canon cannot be questioned, then you your answer to these questions will support that view, which is of course a logical fallacy. <br /><br />3) People often criticize those who want to pick and choose. One looks at the biblical texts and says I like this and this and this, but ignores a host of teachings and stories that don't fit in with their world view. At the same time, we often find that "extrabiblical" teachings are met with great skepticism, merely on the basis of authority. In our dogmatic adherence to <span style="font-style: italic;">Sola Scriptura</span>, we have outlawed any persistence on the part of reason or conscience. If one has a plight of conscience aimed at a particular doctrine in a given christian denomination, then he had better look to the Bible and either show that his misgivings are based in it or re-interpret the words to mean something else than the others understand it to mean. This, of course, gives rise to whole heap of nonsense, but also forces different strains of theology to reinforce their dogma with more and more and more biblical "evidence" and to search for reasons to stick to their own interpretations. Often this pursuit is biased and results in self-delusion, and it causes the secular world to shake its head in disgust. There are some, of course, who thoroughly research their interpretations with an open mind, ready to accept what the biblical writers are trying to say based on rigorous research, study, and thought, but these often get lost in the mire of pop theology and it is difficult to decipher which is which. Are the people espousing this unorthodox view being honest in their criticism of the norm, or are the bombastic arguments in favor of tradition really honest attempts to defend what is actually a very thoroughly studied and decisively answered topic? Sometimes, maybe both are true, and often neither is. <br /><br />4) Given the state we are in, of which the above paragraph is merely a glimpse, one must wonder about efficacy of a book that causes so much dissension and confusion. If such a book is "inerrant" or not, what difference does it make. Suppose such a doctrine is true, and we now have a perfect book, full of words that are absolutely true and artfully and purposely formed by the hand of God to deliver to his people a reliable and succinct manual for life and godliness. If such perfection is seen through an imperfect lens (humankind), then we really aren't receiving a perfect image, are we? If our interpretations distort the text so drastically, in so many different ways, then what is the point of having the original be so cleverly perfect? It's like when a math teacher gives his students a problem far beyond their understanding as something to aspire to, but the problem itself has little value to the students, other than inspiring them to think harder and study more rigorously. In this analogy, scripture doesn't really tell us anything or deliver "sound doctrine," but merely encourages us to try and figure it out ourselves with a various clues thrown into the mix. Perhaps this is actually a good view of what the Bible is, but that's not the doctrine or the purpose of the doctrine of Inerrancy. It's a utilitarian view of the Bible.<br /><br /><br />So what do I believe about scripture. Well, I believe God has used it in my life to guide me in the right direction to encourage me to rebuke me, to train me in righteousness - things that Paul writes about the Hebrew scriptures. In other words, it is God-breathed. Is it authoritative? Is it complete? Is it inerrant? I fear the answers to these questions might be less useful than we think. But lets think about it? Where would we be if we didn't believe in the authority of the Bible? We'd have a whole bunch of varying views on what it means to live with and follow Christ. We'd have rival schools of thought debating theological points on the basis of their own personal preferences. We'd have anyone and their mother picking and choosing what they believe about Jesus and about God's kingdom and his work in the world. We'd have a disorganized society of confused believers where strife abounds and where numbers continued to dwindle across much of the world. We'd have people following God based on their emotions and we'd have all kinds of wild, ridiculous theories about the afterlife and the meaning of life and the nature of Jesus and the teachings of the apostles. <br /><br />In short, we would have exactly what we have today - perhaps with a grain more humility in our own judgments.Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-79529027282582481002011-04-22T22:50:00.000-07:002011-04-22T23:35:17.564-07:00CritiquingI've been spending some time reading book reviews. I often do this after reading a book. I'll read what other people thought of it and see if I agree or disagree. Sometimes people bring up problems with a book that I didn't notice, and it clouds my judgment. Other times I wonder what the heck they are talking about. And still other times, I find their standards so incredibly narrow and subjective, I wonder what the point is in communicating with anyone about what is quality and what is not. I have several issues with the the ways in which people criticize, and I'd like to lay them out here, if I can manage it. <br /><br />First of all, and I have mentioned this before, anachronisms. I've been reading a piece of historical fiction which makes easy use of modern speech. People complain about anachronisms in historical and fantastical works, as if they are the worst form of writing imaginable, and I have to wonder if these people are out of their minds. Have they read Shakespeare? The characters of the 11th and 12th century spoke in a language that was several centuries outdated in <span style="font-style: italic;">Shakespeare'</span>s time, and you expect writers to write like them? Anything that is not horribly convoluted and nearly unreadable in our day is an anachronism, if we're trying to depict the 12th century. One critiquer pointed out a sentence in this book that said, "this place was a real dump," and proceeded to compare such a statement to a medieval knight pulling out a flat screen tv. It's just a stupid way of judging material. The former is a reasonable interpolation of the language of the time into the way we speak today, while the latter is just ridiculous. You really want to read about people who can't speak modern english, jabbering to each other with words we would never use and omitting words that they would never use, despite the perfect functionality of them for communicating to us?<br /><br />Anyway, I also find that some people complain vigorously about plot constructions or character building or language use, without any clear idea of their own ideal. One commenter will complain that the writing is horrible, without feeling, and bland, while others will praise the same writing as evocative and moving. I have been able to find no discernible standard for these judgments. Some people will complain that there are not enough similes or metaphors, while others complain about the ones they find. Thousands of people read books and think themselves worthy critics, able to objectively and succinctly communicate a proper analysis of this or that work, and yet it all comes out as arbitrary nonsense. It is one thing to say what your own experience of reading was like, but when it comes to criticisms of the author as a professional, people can be incredibly arrogant. Sometimes I agree with the judgments people make, and other times, I want to slap them and shout - "Hey! He's not a bad writer. Maybe you're just a bad reader." People rarely conclude that there must be something wrong with the way they read. <br /><br />My last yet significant complaint is in the area of character development, especially in the form of "cliches" and "one-dimensional." I rarely hear anyone explain what they mean when or why it bothers them when characters in a book are "one-dimensional" or if they are all cliches. As for cliches, I have to ask what it is they are looking for. What kind of characters do you want to read about? You can complain all you want about the cast of heroic do-gooder, plucky comic relief, bitter rival, self-centered egotist, pious stoic, and angry ruffian, but what are you looking for? Are people under the impression that characters in a story should have no personality, or do they want some kind of ridiculous alternative to the spectrum of human behavior? The fact is that there are people in life who are manipulative people, consistently. There are people who are heroic. There are cynics, optimists, comedians, stoics, egotists, and a plethora of other "cliches," and to write about people who are not any of these things is just stupid. And here's the catch: these same critiquers, who complain about one-dimensional characters, seem to get upset when a character does or thinks anything inconsistent with previous behavior. They want characters who experience a multitude of emotions and are haunted by several competing desires and live complex and difficult lives, but have them do anything out of character and it's the worst character work they've ever read. The obvious problem with this is the irony, but there is more to it. Human beings are not always complex. They are not always experiencing a multitude of emotions, and they often find it difficult to change their behavior. Human beings fall into behavioral patterns which subsist and strengthen over time. The problem is, there is no way to please people. If you explain everything about a character, they'll complain there's no mystery. If you don't, then they'll say things don't make sense. If a character is consistent, he's a cliche. If he's inconsistent, then he's not believable. A villain is either too evil or too weak and wishy-washy. And the worst part is... there's NO STANDARD. There's nothing but headstrong opinion, just dying to be heeded, yearning to be recognized. <br /><br />And...<br /><br />it...<br /><br />drives...<br /><br />me...<br /><br />nuts!Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-35443750812723745452011-03-02T10:38:00.000-08:002011-03-02T10:54:40.610-08:00East of EdenWhen I found out the rationale behind the title of the book - around halfway through - I was very intrigued. I did not know before opening it that it was a retelling of the Cain and Abel story, nor that it would study the original story in some depth. I have never really been drawn to Steinbeck's work before. I've read "Of Mice and Men" and a few tidbits/excerpts from other works, and I never really cared for the middle-america poor man struggle with life, morals and sorrow. But this story had a very interesting appeal to me from the beginning. Its cast of characters stood out stark, fluid and memorable, without appearing as caricatured or exaggerated (like many-a-Dickens novel). I found I could relate with most of them and understand others. I was impressed with how realistically characters changed throughout the novel, and how the narrator sometimes tried to explain these changes without presumption or arrogance.<br /><br />I also have never been drawn to the story of Cain and Abel. To me, Cain was always a jealous beast and Abel a humble do-gooder, and I never made the effort to humanize them before that. In this book I found myself annoyed and frustrated with the character of Aron (Abel), and at the same time, I grew to love and cherish the character of Cal (Cain), the more I read of them. Cal's struggle with the bad impulses inside of him and his love for his father and brother held me captive. I found myself hoping that it would all turn out different from the original story, or wondering if there might be some role reversal as a twist for the ending. I won't give away the ending, but I will say that reading it felt like I was reading a completely new story, even though Steinbeck claims "there really is only one story."Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784792.post-87811347550032105302010-09-21T22:30:00.001-07:002010-09-22T00:02:59.019-07:00AnachronismsI've been reflecting the past couple of days on the use of anachronisms in fantasy writing. The basic principle is to beware of using elements in writing that wouldn't exist in the given setting. For a medieval setting, generally, they shouldn't have modern language or technology that wouldn't exist yet. You wouldn't see a medieval knight going to the local bookstore, because without a printing press, books were an expensive commodity, and one would only find them in a store that deals with expensive commodities. For the most part, to find a book, you'd have to go to the personal library of some wealthy lord. If you wanted a book store in your medieval fantasy, just like you might have a butcher shop or a tailor, you would need to explain somehow that your medieval fantasy world actually had the means to mass-produce books that might be distributed to local shops.<br /><br />People can be varying degrees of particular, though I suppose most professional writers are precise and deliberate about their word choices. For instance, I read from one writer that he wouldn't have one knight say to another that he was being "paranoid," because that particular word originated with the introduction of psychology (though I suppose he may have meant psycho-analysis, but I'm not sure), a study which they didn't have in the middle ages yet. But this same author admits to using contractions and phrases that make the narrative flow for his readers. Though a medieval merchant might not have said "Don't do that!" we can't have the narrative sounding stilted or choppy by having everyone say "Do not," instead of "don't."<br /><br />So here's my shtick with this issue. People have a range of perceptions about what is anachronistic and what is not. "Sure," "yeah," "okay," might be fine for some and not for others. Most people seem to have problems with more obvious slang choices like, "What's up?" or "Hey, man, how's it hangin." No one seems to recognize that nearly all of today's English Language would be an anachronism in a medieval setting. A knight would never have said, "What's up?" but neither would he have said, "How are you, my lady?" The middle ages cover a lot of time, but think of this, Shakespeare was writing his plays in the late 16th century, more than four hundred years ago. His use of language is understandable, once you get used to it, but the sentence structure and word usage varies largely from our own. The King James Bible was printed in 1611, full of its "Thee"s and "Thou"s and its "haveth"s and "haveth"s "not." Nowhere do we find anyone saying "How are you, my lady?" And yet, most medieval settings are based on the feudal systems of the 11th and 12th centuries. Many are a conglomerate of several time periods, but when asked if it fits in a medieval setting, you're usually asking about the 12th century or so - that's more than four hundred years, again, before Shakespeare. If you look at the way they spoke to one another, it is hardly intelligible to our modern English speakers. You might catch a few words you know, and after a lot of listening pick up a lot you might recognize because it sounds similar, but here's the point: There is nearly NOTHING in our modern language that actually "fits" the medieval setting.<br /><br />So, if every formation of sentences in modern English is anachronistic, what's all the fuss about "What's up?" or "Hey, dude"? Well, it's a bit difficult to say. I mean, just because paranoid was a psychology word, does that mean they didn't have a word for people who always acted like the world was out to get them? If they did, and it was a completely different word from any we use today, shouldn't we use "paranoid" to convey it, and is it really more out of place than saying, "he thought the world was out to get them"? I'm pretty sure, "out to get them" is a fairy recent phrase that has no business in the mouths of knights, kings and queens. When it comes down to it, aren't we taking a language that doesn't even exist anymore and translating it into the modern tongue? Aren't we taking people and places that don't really exist, assigning them identities in settings that are very little like our own and then articulating in modern-day terms what it was like and what people said to each other in stories that we're making up ourselves? Perhaps "paranoid" were <span style="font-style: italic;">only</span> a psychological term today, I might understand, but considering its use in our everyday language, it seems appropriate to use it to convey what we're trying to convey. If you mention "ibuprofen," I think you'll get some heads turning and wondering, "<span style="font-style: italic;">Really</span>? they had <span style="font-style: italic;">ibuprofen</span>?" It's the kind of element that really interrupts an enjoyable read, and it seems unbelievable if you haven't already been told that a time-traveling doctor has come back in time and altered history with his understanding of medicine.<br /><br />With this in mind, writers (or aspiring writers, like me) might think that anything is really fair game, and the truth is that <span style="font-style: italic;">yes</span>, it <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span>. You actually <span style="font-style: italic;">can</span> write whatever you want, and anyone who says that a knight "wouldn't have said," "Hey, dude," is just mind-blowingly ignorant of the fact that "Hey, dude" was your interpretation of the way in which a medieval knight, who doesn't speak the same language as us, greeted his fellow medieval knight, who also doesn't speak the same language as us. Clearly, you were trying to convey by using the colloquial expression, "Hey, dude," that this character has an informal attitude and a casual relationship with the object of his greeting. Also, you might be trying to say that his general manner resembles that of a surfer or a hippie, that he roams the earth rescuing damsels in much the same way as a surfer "dude" roams the beach picking up chicks. The problem is that you will find a majority of readers (and editors) who expect to become engrossed in a medieval tale of wizardry and courtly intrigue, and they find themselves interrupted with their formerly fantastical characters suddenly sounding not so fantastical. Many might throw the book/manuscript down in disgust, as if you had just betrayed or insulted them. Despite the fact that it may be their fault for not understanding what you're trying to do or not being able to accept a knight that says "dude," you've still lost a majority of your readership and most likely it won't get that far because you've got no book deal.<br /><br />Here's the thing: Anachronistic dialogue is purely SUBJECTIVE, in much the same way that writing styles are subjective. If you write a book today with sentences as long and convoluted as you'd find in a John Steinbeck novel, you're going to just end up annoying people, and though you may be a master at what you're doing, it's not what you want to do if you want to sell books. If your word choices jar the reader away from the narrative, chances are, you're not going to be a successful writer, because editors won't want to print your books and people won't want to buy them.<br /><br />So here' s my dilemma. I recently had a short story sent through "Critters", an online critiquing group. The basic idea is that you write critiques for other people's work, and they'll write some for yours. I was not under the illusion that my work was up to par with today's writing standards, yet I found myself perplexed about the response to some instances of anachronistic dialogue. Some of it I had already wondered about, but here's an example of a critique and what they thought:<br /><br />(my dialogue)<br />>..."you've only had your Pa to teach you, and he's respectable, but man... just...<br />>tell me what your secret is, man."<br /><br />(his comment)<br />>The expression "man" is a fairly modern one.<br />>So it sounds a bit out of place if this is supposed to be medieval.<br />>Something a little closer would be something like,<br />>"Pray sir, how have you become so skilled so quickly?"<br /><br />Can y0u already see where I'm going with this? <span style="font-style: italic;">REALLY? You want me to put that garbage on the page?</span> Now I'm not claiming my use of dialogue is a stroke of genius - in fact, I'll probably have to change it. But "PRAY SIR"? Does that sound like the way <span style="font-style: italic;">ANYONE</span> would talk to people? Now the fact is, he's wrong. His sentence is no closer or farther away than mine to actual medieval language. But the fact is that he's right, because to <span style="font-style: italic;">most people</span> the expression I'm using does <span style="font-style: italic;">sound</span> out of place. It makes them feel like they're not reading a fantasy adventure anymore, and for many fantasy readers, that's just annoying.<br /><br />Given that there is absolutely no <span style="font-style: italic;">way</span> that I'm going to riddle my narrative with high-and-mighty pseudo-medieval formal babbling, I'm having a dilemma. I need to make my characters come to life in today's language, without using too much of today's language. That's it, I guess. I have not been able to find an intelligent discussion on this topic, but from the critiques I've gotten, opinions vary greatly - plus, everyone has one, and few seem to know why they have it, other than the fact that a certain word or phrase "feels out of place."Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03796177746716701185noreply@blogger.com2