(Also see a longer list here).
Unintentionally there seems to be a recent blog thread developing. The story goes like this: Over the years I've been thinking about church and culture (e.g. here or here), how life entails making difficult decisions (here and here), and that as a church we're really not addressing this well - perhaps because churches already have issues (here). We all have our own story, but sometimes we feel as if we're being cooked by secularism - which can also be positive (here). However, the call from God is to make a story where we bring Jesus into our life's encounters (here) as we seek to be relevant (here). The problem, of course, is that churches are poor at equipping us (here) for the tough conversations (here), and especially for living among the choices of an ethical wasteland (here). So what topics do you think our local church leaders should be personally wrestling with, what issues would you like to bring to your leaders and get an intelligent conversation to help our thinking (not necessarily an answer, because all decisions are ultimately our own). Here are a few suggestions of issues that I am wrestling with so that I can articulate a Christian, biblical, rational, and logical understanding.
I'll leave the last one as a stand alone bullet because it has so many dimensions:
So church leaders, can I come to you next Sunday and ask for your biblically-informed and reasoned thoughts on Jesus' view about any of these?
0 Comments
Living in a city its easy to forget what an ethical wasteland it is. An example (from here):
Popular (and controversial) evangelical pastor Rob Bell appeared on Oprah's Soul Food Sunday this weekend and shared why marriage is so important - for gay and straight people alike. Said Bell: "One of the oldest aches in the bones of humanity is loneliness....Loneliness is not good for the world. And so whoever you are, gay or straight, it is totally normal, natural and healthy to want someone to go through life with. It's central to our humanity. We want someone to go on the journey with." When Oprah followed up by asking Bell when Christianity would "get that," he responded: "We're moments away...I think culture is already there and the church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best defence, when you have in front of you flesh-and-blood people who are your brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles and co-workers and neighbours and they love each other and just want to go through life with someone." OK, so apart from the fact that Bell has just said the Bible is irrelevant and not authoritative, what's the problem here? Well, the problem is that, using the name of Jesus Bell is defining a code of ethics that suits his preferences, and making culture the defining measure of ethical authority. Does that disturb you? How would you respond? For myself, I frequently encounter three arguments in relation to this hot-button topic:
The answer, I believe, does not lie in direct rebuttal (even though I think these arguments are reasonably easy to rebut). Direct rebuttal usually leads to confrontation which is a small step away from condemnation. Instead my approach is usually to steer the conversation toward the assumptions. Then we can see if the arguments have strength. For example:
And on that last point, Jesus stands for holiness, perfection, and the intended normality of our originally created nature. Jesus teaches that our created purpose is to be in relationship with a perfect God, the same God who defines the created normality, and its clear that practising gay relationships are not part of God's intended normality. Lastly, many arguments presume on the inner goodness of man, and deny the fallen nature. Therefore, when an action (e.g. practising gay lifestyles) co-opts a good value (e.g. love), this presumes that because there is love in the action it can't be wrong. This reasoning simply fails all common sense tests. I do not condemn anyone in the LGBT community. I stand with the LGBT community as an individual who equally has to daily deal with the complexity of being a failed creature, however this is manifest. In this my focus is to (re-)become the creature I was intended to be, by the grace and the strength I find in Jesus. My focus is not on where I've come from, or where I am, but where I am headed - its my trajectory that’s important, not so much my current position. If you take exception to that, I suggest (genuinely) talking to God (after all, He's the one who created normality). What's that actually mean - "Be Relevant"? Churches and Christians are continually being challenged to be relevant. My question is, "To who, how, where, why, and when"? I ask because most often churches seem to exist to please the pews and perpetuate the institution. OK, that's being cynical and we can all point to exceptions, but you and I also both know that much of what happens inside the church is disconnected from the real world . If it is true (and I believe it is) that "The Church is the only organisation that exists for the well-being and fraternity of its non-members" (William Temple), then what does relevance mean? Even churches (like mine) who are sincerely seeking to serve the community, struggle with irregular and poor attendance, wrestle with how to retain seeking visitors, and don't know how to be sustainable without burning out the leadership. The problem is, are we at all relevant to the people around us? Relevant is defined as "bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand". The matter at hand, of course, is the well-being of people - and being-well means to be connected to God. So a relevant church must be one whose activities connect people to God. Basically its simply the great commission and all that: Jesus' "came to seek and save the lost", and Paul's "I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some." Relevance! Huh. Easy to say, hard to be. Some churches try to do this by turning the message into something that plays to peoples desires, like prosperity teaching or liberation theology. Other churches resort to professional music performances with slick and entertaining sound bites of sermons, or else they promote comforting cotton wool ideas like "Love is all you need". In doing so they twist orthodoxy to accommodate sliding morals out of a fear of scaring anyone away. Still other churches get around the difficult issues by never talking about them. Jesus was not in a game of telling people what they want to hear just so that they would stick around. Jesus was about teaching people what they needed to hear, and if they walked away, then so be it. So a relevant church is about uncompromisingly bringing Jesus to bear on the matters at hand in the best way possible. If we want to be relevant, it comes down to how we phrase a key question. Instead of saying "While keeping our beloved conventions and traditions, how we can become relevant?", ask this question: "What do we need to be(come) so we have relevance, and after that we can ask about which of our traditions and conventions could be used to bring added value?" Its a structural reboot that takes the courage of the total sacrifice of all I hold dear in order to follow God's agenda. What have you got to lose? Because that's what Jesus did. Jesus didn't look at people through the lens of traditions, when he bothered to look at traditions it was through the lens of people's need. And he was especially scathing about the massive accumulation of human devised rules and patterns of behaviour in the religious culture. So lets put aside all those, put aside convention and tradition for a moment - don't arbitrarily throw it away because some of it has great value - but for the sake of discussion put it aside for now. (But don't put aside biblical orthodoxy - on that we will be uncompromising.) Now: what does it mean to be relevant in our city-focused and relativistic culture? It means beginning by engaging with where people are, and what the people are occupied with. What are the issues on their minds, and the inner fears they won't easily disclose? Ask yourself, "What are the conversations going on in the pubs, the restaurants, the tea rooms and cafeterias, the work place, the living rooms, and even privately in the bedrooms?" A case in point: This year's Valentine's days saw the release of "50 shades of grey". This was the biggest box-office opener of all movies in recent years. You can bet that on Monday morning this came up in lots of conversations! If you're the Christian at work, how do you (representing Jesus) join that conversation? Well, at least you can draw on the conversation you had about it at church? You did you have a conversation about it at church, didn't you? Hmmm. What are all the other conversations? Recreational sex. Global economy. ISIS. Climate Change. Tea party idiocy. Middle East unrest. Nuclear proliferation. China's growth. Fear, loneliness, and suicide. Drugs and addictions. LGBT and sexual identities. Alien in-migration (not extraterrestrials). Racism. Gender inequality. Rape. Unemployment. Crime and security. Homelessness. Poverty. Justice. Corruption. Tax evasion. Politics. Sex (again). What would Jesus say if he joined these conversations (and for sure he'd be there: in the pubs, in the living rooms, on the sports fields)? Since you and I are Jesus to this world, what would you or I say? That's a first step in relevance - bringing Jesus' perspective into the important conversations that people are having, and that means knowing Jesus' perspective. So if the conversation, and our message in conversation, is the first part of relevance, what's second? To deliver a message, there needs to be a messenger. In Jesus' time he called all sorts of messengers; fisherman (Peter), tax collectors (Matthew), and the intelligentsia (Paul). Each spoke into the community for which they were equipped, and they spoke in Joy, in compassion, and not in condemnation. So relevance-part-2 is being a messenger who can connect with the culture of those being reached. In my churches culture that means being equipped to be able to transparently interact with: 1. A lifestyle based on technology and media which hold together a virtual world of relationships. Read this and see if you best fit the questioner or respondent. 2. A world view that holds no absolute authority, where self-pleasure is (the?) priority, and happiness an ultimate goal in life. 3. Attitudes of relative morals; "if it feels good, it probably is good, and who are you to tell me otherwise". 4. Relationships based on gratification and an idealistic objectification of pleasure (steered by the media). 5. An upbringing where ambition and acquisition are glorified, despite the costs. 6. Conversations where lifestyles are not to be questioned so long as no-one is perceived to get hurt. 7. etc., etc. You know (or should know) your communities conversations. And so the real question of church relevance is this: Will you let Jesus take you down a road where many of your beloved conventions are stripped aside, where courage and compassion is needed to bless rather than judge, where we might need to go into the lives of people we'd rather avoid. It means we'll have to find Jesus' response to hard questions, be willing to become the messenger that speaks in a way that will be listened to in the places where its needed on the topics of importance. Grace. Now that’s relevant. Before you get the wrong idea, this is not about cannibalism. Its about extremely mixed metaphors, bad chemistry, and eventually about Christians. Vegetarians may struggle with the analogy. I had a debate with someone about cooking temperatures. Now if you travel a lot like me, and stay in hotels, you'll know all about the "boiled bacon breakfast syndrome". You know, when you get those breakfast buffets with rows of trays of mass produced "egg", bacon, sausages of dubious identity, warm potato slices, and partnered with wilted fruit swimming in bowls of liquid. The bacon is “fried” - that is, its been in a pan until its no longer raw, but for efficiency reasons was taken out before the moisture had evaporated - before the fats had begun to melt: and so we get "boiled bacon". You can eat it, but the flavour just does not come through like bacon that has been sizzle fried – where the moisture has evaporated and the oils are sizzling, the fat gets crispy and the aroma is irresistible. That's chemistry. I have a friend who (I think) is an embarrassment to the rich culture of the South Africa braai (which is just like a barbecue in the same way that rugby is exactly like American football). He cooks his lamb chops over a low-heat bed of wood-coals. His meat is not raw … but dried-out! Meat responds to carefully timed application of heat: low heat cooking simply stops it being raw but doesn't release much flavour. That's why steaks are seared (even if you like to eat the inside nearly raw). That's why onion needs to be sautéed in oil, not simply steamed until its limp. When the heat rises then chemistry happens and the locked in flavours are released. That’s how we get Sunday roast, flame grilled steak, and properly fried bacon. Some Christians need to be cooked before they release flavour. The reason is that while a Christian lives in his comfort zone, secure in material possessions and safe in a social circle of support, the true flavours are locked up. Grace is not released, the seasoning of forgiveness is missing, faith and trust are shallow at best, and selfless love (the kind that costs more than one's surplus) is given token attention. Worship is expressed through the pleasures of professional music, and sacrifice is reduced to letting it be publicly known that one goes to church. There is no heat! When cooking starts, when the fat melts away, and when the flavours are released, then we learn how to be the salt of the earth (there's your mixed metaphor!). Its perhaps to be expected: in our fallen state it takes immense determination, motivation, and focus to overcome the apathy of the status quo. And so we should not be surprised when Jesus doesn't offer tranquillity in this life; he sees a bigger picture and is perfecting his bride, even if for some that means a bit of cooking is needed. I believe that for some people he allows the heat of consequence to rise (he does not cause it) and doesn't automatically intervene with a safety net for our stupid choices, because he desires us to be as flavour-full as possible with the grace of Jesus in our lives. I had a conversation recently – one of those where you think you’re getting the other persons viewpoint, and you think they get yours, until you realize you don’t. I’m a Christian, he’s an ex-Christian (I think), but I’m still not exactly sure of his replacement world view. The conversation was on one subject, and lurking in the overtones was faith and Christianity.
It’s hard to recount such a conversation and what follows is a memory - whether I get it exactly right or not is not really the point. I think there are some really important issues at play where we often make assumptions about other people, and often get it wrong. I assumed he held logic as an indisputable authority, he assumed I limited myself in logic. I don’t remember how it all began, it was lunch, and strange things happen at lunch. At some point I made a statement along the lines of “If we are no more than mere atoms then life is meaningless”. That was a unfortunate choice of words because he found the semantic weak point and responded “Of course I can find meaning”. I agree to some degree; certainly the new-Atheism community is formulating all sorts of arguments about how an atheist (which I take to mean someone who subscribes to the position “I’m no more than the mere atoms of which I’m made”) can construct meaning. I suppose I should have said “ultimately meaningless”. For logic would say that if I am only atoms, then there is no ultimate meaning, and any meaning I might construct is necessarily relative and self-defined. Such meaning may satisfy me (for a moment) but life must logically be ultimately meaningless. The inherent weakness of a self-identified meaning usually shows up when an individual is in the face of intense stress or imminent death. At this point my discussion partner split the conversation (or maybe I did it) into two inter-mingled threads. But for clarity let me present them separately as I perceived them, not as it happened in conversation. First is the challenge to my use of logic. I said logic is the only refuge we have for thinking, and as best we can tell logic is the only external framework for thinking that is verifiable (so far as our senses can tell). I went on to say that the essence of logic begins with the law of non-contradiction. For example, logic would say 1+1 cannot equal 2 and equal 3. His challenge to this was that I’m locking myself into a solution. He asked “could you not imagine an alternative framework where such logic did not operate” – implying that I had chosen to limit my thinking by requiring that we play by the rules of logic. It took me awhile to convince him that of course I could imagine alternatives. I have a very active imagination that gives me hours of pleasure! I love Alice in Wonderland, Tolkien, and Terry Pratchett. Of course neither he (I hope) nor I would suggest these reflect reality. But I can also very easily imagine many other very plausible ways in which reality could be operating beyond our comprehension. I can even imagine that logic may be only symptomatic of something else in a higher dimensional existence that we cannot see. I can imagine I’m wrong (and I often do). But my point in response was that while I can and do imagine alternatives, I also have to have a working hypothesis of life … for otherwise I have no basis for decisions and choice. My working hypothesis of life is the one which is supported by the evidence. If I suddenly found out that 1+1 can equal 3, then I will (unhappily) quickly change my frame of reference. I would be extremely stupid, foolish, and dishonest not to do so. Thus my use of logic as the working hypothesis of authority is rooted in the evidence of experience (what else do I have?). Imagination has no authority; it may fruitfully lead me down paths of discovery but until there is evidence to support the imagination, it would be deeply unwise to let imaginative ideas determine my choice without the evidence to support it. I can imagine that I can choose to negate gravity (I love Douglas Adams’ description of Arthur learning to fly), but it would be unwise for me to act on that imagination in real life. Therefore the modus operandi for my life is to examine, conclude, then act. As evidence builds I will of course re-examine, re-conclude, and re-adapt. And so we come to the second thread. While we avoided overt discussion of God and Christianity, this was an inevitable backdrop to discussing whether we are more than the mere atoms that make us up. I strongly believe I am more than the mere atoms … (my) logic and experience tells me so. Of course I may be deluded, but so far this is my working hypothesis. He, I think, is more of the mind that we are deterministic with a splash of randomness that gives the delusion that there is something more going on (although, as I said earlier, I’m not really sure that is his position). This second conversation thread is the mystical equivalent of the former, and he challenged me with the statement that I only believe what I do because I’ve chosen to lock myself into the constraints of a Christian theology, a particular lens on life. He pushed me on this point assuming (I think) that this was the case, and that consequently I was not allowing myself to imagine alternative explanations and realities to my experience. This is a natural assumption; most people with a highly secularized world view assume this about someone who affirms a religious affiliation. In many cases I sadly think the assumption is completely warranted. But I pushed back on that and noted that I do engage with imagining my beliefs to be wrong, I do entertain doubt – frequently. This surprised him, I hope. For I believe logic is authoritative (my experience tells me so), and I believe imagination can open the way to alternatives (my experience tells me so). I also hold that evidence and experience are the constraints to the design of my working hypothesis for life. Ever since I got past being dominated by the hormones of childhood I have been on a journey of doubt, (re-)examination, (re-)imagination, and conclusion. Along the way there have been ups and downs, but always I converge back to my working hypothesis; I am more than the atoms that make me up, there is a spiritual dimension that is what makes me be me, and there is a “higher power” (to use the politically correct term). To be politically incorrect, I think all religions reflect some of this truth (as one would logically expect them to), but that only Christ (not Christianity) offers a full and logically consistent explanation (implying that all other religions are ultimately dead ends, if you'll excuse the pun). Of course there remains mystery … logic would say that if my position is true then there MUST be mystery. It is a logical necessity that the finite cannot fully understand the infinite. The offence to my senses comes from my wanting to think I can understand the infinite, but logic quickly raps me over the knuckles and gives me the apparent paradox that says “You cannot fully understand, but to be honest with yourself you must necessarily try”. And to finish with logical consistency, I imagine all the above could be wrong. Read a Christian philosopher and I believe that within minutes (assuming you're investing yourself) you will discover a gem articulated in a way you've never seen before. Like an artist drawing stark lines on a water color wash, they have an ability to bring distinctiveness to what until then we've only seen as diffuse. Is it our arrogance that drags us back from digging into these works? I've been (re-)reading Christian philosophers, and listening when possible. And everytime I feel it's almost too much. Those who know me know my favorites, whose books I can hardly read without making notation on each page; like Chesterton, Lewis (of course), Kreeft. How do we get people to engage more? If our churches could only inculcate the skill of logical reasoning, our relationship with Jesus would be transformed. Here's some samples to get you going. (do give each 5-10 minutes before you dis-invest).
|
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|