As you should know by now I'm a huge baseball fan and as such I found myself spending my Sunday afternoon watching the Pirates vs. Reds game on tv and watching the Orioles game via mlb.com gamecast. During the telecast on FSN one of the announcers began to discuss baseball tradition and the important role it plays in helping teams and the game. The announcer also made the point that it is becoming necessary for the teams to bring in the players of older championship teams (i.e. the '79 Pirates) to help create some sense of belonging and connectedness to the organization with the younger players.
As I thought about this it seemed like a good idea to me, I long for the winning ways of the older Oriole teams, the days of the Oriole Way with Weaver, Palmer, Powell, the days of legend that I don't remember but that I've heard about time and time again. I also thought about football, of course I would love the Vikings to rise again and become the Purple People Eaters of yore.
It seems to me that Sports fans constantly talk about and long for tradition lived out in their teams. It seems that this desire is part of the torture of having a team relocate from one city to another. If a team moves then in a sense the tradition dies, the character seems to be ontologically changed and thus it just isn't the same. Think about when the Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens. Why did they change their name? In part is was because the city filed a suit against the NFL to retain the name and the records. Thus when a new team came back into Cleveland the name and records were in place and the tradition of the Browns could pick right back up where is left off with the dog-pound intact and everything.
It seems that it's not just sports fans that long for tradition either. Towns and communities seek to keep various traditions alive, our nation has traditions like the 4th of July and all the local customs that are entailed with that. Tradition is everywhere and is commonly held as a good thing to sustain within our culture, but the question I must as is, "Why is the church an anomaly to this?"
You may have though that this post was going to just be about baseball and football but really the aforementioned baseball commentator started getting me thinking about why if society (via sports and other things) values tradition so much then why does so much of the American church seek to rid itself of any sort of Christian tradition?
Why over the past 20+ years has American Christianity (especially Protestant Christianity) pushed to rid itself of the life-giving traditions of the Church? Why have we stopped following the Christian calendar? Why have we stopped fasting? Why have we left the songs of the faith and tried to push all forms of tradition out of our churches?
Granted the Emergent movement is trying to remedy this, but the problem with them is that they see tradition as merely something ascetic and enjoyable rather than an authoritative life practice. The problem with the Emergents is that they can embrace the traditions but they appropriate them in such a matter that they continue in their heresies and blasphemies just like the Nestorians and Arians of old.
I have heard the Jaroslav Pelikan once said that "traditionalism is the dead faith of the living, tradition is the living faith of the dead." I would add to that that the true faith of the Church is found in her traditions as they live and breathe among us. In fact our Holy Scriptures are very much a product of the tradition of the faith and we have them in part because holy men and women saw fit to preserve these letters and gospels and pass them on as authoritative texts.
Yes, there is a danger that the life-giving traditions can become dry and stale examples of nothing more than traditionalism, but it is our job to remember these things, to live them and to allow them to be authoritative to us so that we may be able to live in the heritage of the Christian faith.
Just as the FNS announcer saw it as a good thing for the Pirates and Reds to bring in their "cloud of witnesses" to attest to the younger generations the heritage of their organization so we must never forget our ways and embrace the traditions of the faith or else we risk forgetting the faith altogether. Why evangelicals see it as necessary to abandon tradition in hope of winning converts is beyond me. We do these hypothetical converts a disservice when we initiate them into a tradition-less faith that is devoid of the truth and the power of the gospel. Obviously we want to remove hindrances but in order to be of any salvific good we must live and breath the language of faith and then explain that language of faith with peace, patience and love to those who see the fullness of truth that is found in Christianity.
Showing posts with label Seeker Churches. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Seeker Churches. Show all posts
Monday, April 14, 2008
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Unitarian Universalists
I went to a Unitarian Universalist Church the other day and it was an interesting experience. No, I am not converting, I had to go to another religious movement/cult for a class and they were the easiest to figure out when they met. I would write a total review, but I'm kinda lazy so I won't. I did however run into my friend Ed at the church (surprising because he goes to St. Athanasius as well) and Ed wrote a good review of the church on his blog.
I think Ed does a great job describing the UU church. His thoughts almost exactly echo mine especially when he mentions the service being boring. Oh my goodness, it was the most boring thing I've ever been to - even more boring than a Dr. Gould greek class.
The only thing I would add onto his post is that I agree that it looked much like the protestant/emergent services. In fact I would argue that it is a lot like so much of protestantism. A great deal of the service reminded me of seeker churches and even a bunch like the chapel services here at the Seminary. This, however, is not a good thing. I'm not making this point to say: "yay, look how close they are to the truth." rather it is surprising how far so much of weak protestantism (including so many of our chapel services here at the seminary) have strayed from boldly proclaiming the truth with any amount of urgency. This service really reminded me a lot of Quest Community Church which I have recently blogged about. That may be a cheap shot, but I really think(from what little I've seen) that Quest is a far cry from proclaiming the gospel and is so afraid at alienating people that they might as well be Unitarian Universalists.
I suppose that's it for now since my cults class is almost over. I had an idea for a post in class today but it may take some time to develop as I feel I should attend some services at Quest before I try to use our class paradigm to qualify them as a cult. But it should be a fun try.
- Ben
I think Ed does a great job describing the UU church. His thoughts almost exactly echo mine especially when he mentions the service being boring. Oh my goodness, it was the most boring thing I've ever been to - even more boring than a Dr. Gould greek class.
The only thing I would add onto his post is that I agree that it looked much like the protestant/emergent services. In fact I would argue that it is a lot like so much of protestantism. A great deal of the service reminded me of seeker churches and even a bunch like the chapel services here at the Seminary. This, however, is not a good thing. I'm not making this point to say: "yay, look how close they are to the truth." rather it is surprising how far so much of weak protestantism (including so many of our chapel services here at the seminary) have strayed from boldly proclaiming the truth with any amount of urgency. This service really reminded me a lot of Quest Community Church which I have recently blogged about. That may be a cheap shot, but I really think(from what little I've seen) that Quest is a far cry from proclaiming the gospel and is so afraid at alienating people that they might as well be Unitarian Universalists.
I suppose that's it for now since my cults class is almost over. I had an idea for a post in class today but it may take some time to develop as I feel I should attend some services at Quest before I try to use our class paradigm to qualify them as a cult. But it should be a fun try.
- Ben
Sunday, September 16, 2007
When paradigms collide
As most of you know I spent the summer living in Duluth, MN working for an organization called Youthworks. While you probably know from a previous post that I spent the summer facilitating short-term missions for Jr. High students, I do believe that I forgot to mention that every Tuesday we would take the groups that came to our site to a 'soup kitchen' to dine and fellowship with the people who ate there. While not everyone was homeless (though some were) most were among the poor of the city. This was a great stretch for me this summer. It made me uncomfortable and it pulled me out of my comfort zone (just like so much of the summer) but by the time the summer ended I looked forward to Tuesday nights and the people that I would meet.
Last week, about 3-5 weeks after my meals at the Mission had come to an end, I found myself working on the sound crew for an very prestigious show here in Lexington. The artist was Aretha Franklin, but the event was the TOBA (Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association) annual award ceremony. So while I'm use to seeing a ton of money dropped on concerts I don't know if I've ever seen money like this before. The event was in a large tent on a beautiful horse farm here in KY. The tent, however, was floored, carpeted and air-conditioned. Aside from the regular light trussing for the concert there was a light truss that ran the entire length of the tent on which hung three giant chandeliers (maybe about 7' tall x 3' around). I also heard rumors, which I wasn't able to verify, that the event was about $3,000 a plate.
I was both awed and disgusted by the money put into this event. To make matters worse the event was opened with an invocation which was prefaced by the reading of Jeremiah 29:11 "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the LORD, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.'" I love it when bible passages are taken out of context to justify gross amounts of wealth and self-indulgence (this is not to say that I'm 100% innocent of this).
As the awards went on I began to think that just a few weeks before this event I was eating dinner with the poor and neglected and now I was sitting in the background amongst the wealthy, powerful, and oppressive. As I sat in the disbelief of this realization one of the presenters gave an impassioned speech about how everyone in attendance needs to be aware of the sad reality that the thoroughbred industry is not considered agricultural by the US government and thus they still have to do horrible things like pay taxes on horse food and whatnot. I just sat in disbelief, could this person even be arguing that thoroughbred breeding and racing should be a tax-exempt industry?!
I pretty much just sat in the numb and saddening reality of the smash-up of my two worlds until Aretha came on stage and I had to do work.
After tearing down from the concert and getting a solid 4 hours of sleep I woke up the next morning (Sunday) to go run sound for Questapalooza an event held by one of the Lexington churches (a C&MA church I might add) where Toby Mac was the headliner. I knew from working this show last year, that the day would be full of chaos, poor event management, and very bad theology, but I was still saddened and angered by what I saw.
Not only did I see the huge stage, sound equipment and lighting that my company provides, but I also saw carnival rides, a motocross jump, carnival food vendors, and swimming pools for baptism. While things such as the fake-ness, the foundational concepts that church is built on, the re-baptizing, the 'worship' music, and many other things bothered me greatly I would like to focus on one small part of the larger whole that I think will tie into the discussion above - namely the theme of the event.
The theme for Questapalooza as best as I could understand was "Loving our city through Questapalooza!" It seemed to me that what they meant by this is that they were giving the city a party so they could relax and enjoy (at about a $20 entry fee mind you), but also that they were going to give away things to people such as a Wii, an iphone, and a new car. To be honest I think they may have also collected food or raised money for some shelters or organization in Lexington but this was only mentioned once (very briefly) compared to the party terminology and the give-aways being mentioned a countless number of times. In fact the point was hammered home by the senior pastor (who was, to my shame, both a Houghton College and Asbury Seminary graduate) that Quest likes to give gifts because God likes to give us gifts. After giving away the car the pastor also said: "Just know that that's Jesus, that car is from Jesus." While this oozes with heretical prosperity theology tendencies, I am not going to rule out that God does provide for our physical needs. He may have indeed prompted this person to buy a raffle ticket and guided the pastor's hand to that ticket so she could win a car. What, however, I will react definitively against is a church and a concept of God that ties love so closely to material things and goods.
With a theme like "Loving our city through Questapalooza!" I can only assume that the people of the church and maybe even the pastor are being deceived. I can think of so many more worthy places to spend what was likely over $100,000. Just so you don't think I'm totally making this figure up let me explain how I get it. Last summer our mobile stage usually rented out for $10,000 a show not including audio and lighting (maybe another 10 grand or so?). When I was in college I inquired about booking Third Day ($70,000 at the time) and since Toby isn't as big as Third Day I'd estimate about $30,000. So at a rough estimate we're talking about $50,000 (with very conservative estimates) which doesn't include the two opening bands, food for all the volunteers, the carnival rides, the moto-cross riders (and building their jump), renting port-a-johns, hotel for the bands, and the fireworks amongst other expenses.
On top of the expense of the event it was also interesting to note that when I stood on stage and looked out I primarily saw the green volunteer t-shirts. So i'm baffled as to how Questapalooza is an example of love to the city of Lexington. It seems to me that at the very least a church shows love to a city by discipling believers to live lives full of God and at the most by serving the poor and needy of that city. I thought loving a city was doing things like I did this summer: meeting people, loving on them, eating with them, serving them and not throwing them a concert that many of them don't have interest in and don't want to spend $20 to go to. $100,000 could do a lot of things and help a lot of people and I am truly ashamed that a church in the denomination I grew up in is the force behind Questapalooza.
With that said let me make it clear that the people I met at quest were very kind even if they did have some sort of cultish affection for Quest. I also know that many other churches do this on both larger and smaller scales. Yes, they do it, but that does not make Quest any more right and these churches any more shameful.
So there is my story as to how my paradigms collided last weekend. I still have a hard time believe that just a few weeks ago I was eating with some homeless people and teaching kids about being part of a church that serves in love and last week I was sitting at a $3,000/plate dinner and part of a church event that somehow implicitly teaches (heretically so) that the love of God is best displayed by throwing cash around and having a big party.
May all of us better learn how to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves.
- Ben
Last week, about 3-5 weeks after my meals at the Mission had come to an end, I found myself working on the sound crew for an very prestigious show here in Lexington. The artist was Aretha Franklin, but the event was the TOBA (Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association) annual award ceremony. So while I'm use to seeing a ton of money dropped on concerts I don't know if I've ever seen money like this before. The event was in a large tent on a beautiful horse farm here in KY. The tent, however, was floored, carpeted and air-conditioned. Aside from the regular light trussing for the concert there was a light truss that ran the entire length of the tent on which hung three giant chandeliers (maybe about 7' tall x 3' around). I also heard rumors, which I wasn't able to verify, that the event was about $3,000 a plate.
I was both awed and disgusted by the money put into this event. To make matters worse the event was opened with an invocation which was prefaced by the reading of Jeremiah 29:11 "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the LORD, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.'" I love it when bible passages are taken out of context to justify gross amounts of wealth and self-indulgence (this is not to say that I'm 100% innocent of this).
As the awards went on I began to think that just a few weeks before this event I was eating dinner with the poor and neglected and now I was sitting in the background amongst the wealthy, powerful, and oppressive. As I sat in the disbelief of this realization one of the presenters gave an impassioned speech about how everyone in attendance needs to be aware of the sad reality that the thoroughbred industry is not considered agricultural by the US government and thus they still have to do horrible things like pay taxes on horse food and whatnot. I just sat in disbelief, could this person even be arguing that thoroughbred breeding and racing should be a tax-exempt industry?!
I pretty much just sat in the numb and saddening reality of the smash-up of my two worlds until Aretha came on stage and I had to do work.
After tearing down from the concert and getting a solid 4 hours of sleep I woke up the next morning (Sunday) to go run sound for Questapalooza an event held by one of the Lexington churches (a C&MA church I might add) where Toby Mac was the headliner. I knew from working this show last year, that the day would be full of chaos, poor event management, and very bad theology, but I was still saddened and angered by what I saw.
Not only did I see the huge stage, sound equipment and lighting that my company provides, but I also saw carnival rides, a motocross jump, carnival food vendors, and swimming pools for baptism. While things such as the fake-ness, the foundational concepts that church is built on, the re-baptizing, the 'worship' music, and many other things bothered me greatly I would like to focus on one small part of the larger whole that I think will tie into the discussion above - namely the theme of the event.
The theme for Questapalooza as best as I could understand was "Loving our city through Questapalooza!" It seemed to me that what they meant by this is that they were giving the city a party so they could relax and enjoy (at about a $20 entry fee mind you), but also that they were going to give away things to people such as a Wii, an iphone, and a new car. To be honest I think they may have also collected food or raised money for some shelters or organization in Lexington but this was only mentioned once (very briefly) compared to the party terminology and the give-aways being mentioned a countless number of times. In fact the point was hammered home by the senior pastor (who was, to my shame, both a Houghton College and Asbury Seminary graduate) that Quest likes to give gifts because God likes to give us gifts. After giving away the car the pastor also said: "Just know that that's Jesus, that car is from Jesus." While this oozes with heretical prosperity theology tendencies, I am not going to rule out that God does provide for our physical needs. He may have indeed prompted this person to buy a raffle ticket and guided the pastor's hand to that ticket so she could win a car. What, however, I will react definitively against is a church and a concept of God that ties love so closely to material things and goods.
With a theme like "Loving our city through Questapalooza!" I can only assume that the people of the church and maybe even the pastor are being deceived. I can think of so many more worthy places to spend what was likely over $100,000. Just so you don't think I'm totally making this figure up let me explain how I get it. Last summer our mobile stage usually rented out for $10,000 a show not including audio and lighting (maybe another 10 grand or so?). When I was in college I inquired about booking Third Day ($70,000 at the time) and since Toby isn't as big as Third Day I'd estimate about $30,000. So at a rough estimate we're talking about $50,000 (with very conservative estimates) which doesn't include the two opening bands, food for all the volunteers, the carnival rides, the moto-cross riders (and building their jump), renting port-a-johns, hotel for the bands, and the fireworks amongst other expenses.
On top of the expense of the event it was also interesting to note that when I stood on stage and looked out I primarily saw the green volunteer t-shirts. So i'm baffled as to how Questapalooza is an example of love to the city of Lexington. It seems to me that at the very least a church shows love to a city by discipling believers to live lives full of God and at the most by serving the poor and needy of that city. I thought loving a city was doing things like I did this summer: meeting people, loving on them, eating with them, serving them and not throwing them a concert that many of them don't have interest in and don't want to spend $20 to go to. $100,000 could do a lot of things and help a lot of people and I am truly ashamed that a church in the denomination I grew up in is the force behind Questapalooza.
With that said let me make it clear that the people I met at quest were very kind even if they did have some sort of cultish affection for Quest. I also know that many other churches do this on both larger and smaller scales. Yes, they do it, but that does not make Quest any more right and these churches any more shameful.
So there is my story as to how my paradigms collided last weekend. I still have a hard time believe that just a few weeks ago I was eating with some homeless people and teaching kids about being part of a church that serves in love and last week I was sitting at a $3,000/plate dinner and part of a church event that somehow implicitly teaches (heretically so) that the love of God is best displayed by throwing cash around and having a big party.
May all of us better learn how to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves.
- Ben
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Summer Ramblings II
My declaration that I would try to post more often seems to be in vain, as I haven't found the time to post because I've been so busy with work. Here are some random thoughts that go back as far as the weekend around July 4th.
-------Thoughts from the Road------
I found myself in Dayton, OH on the days immediately preceding the 4th of July and had and interesting conversation with one of the guys that works occasional weekends with our company. He found out I was studying to be a pastor and was trying to strike up conversation with me when he asked "What do you think about those new churches people are going to now?" I replied that I didn't know what he meant, to which he replied: "You know, those new churches like Quest and [another large church in our area]. I realized that both of these churches were well known for being "seeker churches" in fact the people at Quest define themselves solely as a "seeker church". I tried to control myself and not launch into a long lecture on the evils of seeker churches and how they are destroying the very fabric of the church, so I told him something ot the effect of "I guess they're ok, I personally don't enjoy them, but you know..."
His response (the reason for retelling this story) was: "Yeah, I don't like them, I really don't get much from them. They're no real message to em." When he said that I about fell off of the case I was sitting on. It just blew me away that this guy who wouldn't call himself a Christian who doesn't claim to live the Christian life or anything along those lines, is repulsed by the seeker churches in the area. It seems that he would rather have the church be the church instead of trying to mask itself and pretend that it is something it's not (entertainment). I just find it amazing that the people these seeker churches are trying to reach aren't interested in them because they're not Christian enough. Crazy!!
I'll avoid getting on my soap box again and allow the above comments to suffice. I just thought it was a cool story.
----- Thoughts on the 4th of July----
Yes, I know it was a while ago, but it still burns me up. It it wasn't for the super-cool combination of fireworks and BBQs I'm very sure I would hate the 4th of July. I don't hate it because I hate America or anything like that. My biggest problem with Independence day is the reaction the protestant church in America has to it. I firmly believe that the Sunday closest to the 4th of July is the most syncretistic day in all of Protestantism. It is a day when we mesh our worship of a Holy and Triune God with our worship for our nation-state. We, as a church, take this Sunday as an opportunity to jump on the "hooray America" bandwagon and become idolators of our nation.
Frankly this syncretism makes me want to vomit. I am not opposed to being patriotic and I am not opposed to supporting our nation's leaders and things of that nature. But there is absolutly no way that the people of God should be so enamoured with a nation-state, whether it be the USA, England, Iraq, or even the political nation of Israel. To be completely supportive of a nation-state is to lose sight of the kingdom of which we are true citizens - namely the Kingdom of God.
There is also absolutly no way that the work of the people of God (the truest sense of liturgy) should be bastardized with hymning any nation! Yes, it is meet and right to thank God for our freedoms and it is good that we should praise him for the blessing of a stable govermental system surrounding us, but we cannot allow that to be the focal point of our liturgy on the Sunday of Independence day, or on any Sunday. I would even go so far as to argue that to sing patriotic songs in the church is a corruption of the purpose for the gathering of the church.
This problem is not isolated to merely the 4th of July, no, this syncretism runs deep within American Christianity and we must begin to uproot it and rid ourselves of it. We must always remember that our hearts and our homes are not of this or any nation-state, we are citizens of the Kingdom of God. Our citizenship is sealed by partaking of our Lord's death. No one and no nation can lay claim upon us except the one into who's death we have been baptized - our glorious bridegroom Jesus Christ.
------- Topics from the list --------
On my last post I put a list of things I was thinking about at the bottom. Here is one of them.
My church history musings:
A while back I got into a discussion about the start of the papacy with some friends and the issue has been nagging me ever since. Most protestant historians date the start of the papacy with Leo the Great (approx. 450ad) some scholars date this earlier and some a little later, but this seems to be the time of general concensus.
My contention is that there could not have been a "Pope" in the way most would understand it until after the Great Schism (1054). I think that any assertion of a papacy before this date is due to anachronistic and westernly biased reading of the early church documents. Although the common arguments for the papacy first originated with Leo the Great it is very clear from reading church history that he is not taken as the supreme bishop. His word does not sway all the other bishops and he does not have the power to control all the other regions of the church. It is my thought that protestant scholars have read church history through a western lens for so long that they fail to understand the eastern idea of "order of primacy." Order of primacy simly means that one is the highest among equals. In other words if the Roman bishop (Leo) had the highest order of primacy he would not have more power than the other bishops, but his opinion would have been held with a little (note little) more weight than some of the others. This does not imply that he has more power, it is just an issue of respect.
I may have not explained that clear enough, but this is what I think we have in the case of Leo and the other early bishops of Rome that the protestant scholars like to refer to as popes. To be clear it is obviously absurd to think that the Great Schism happened and "poof" we have a pope. Yes, this was a growing political force which finally came to a head when the Bishop of Rome acted upon the power he thought he had and inserted a phrase into the Nicene Creed.
I argue that the Bishop of Rome could not have been a true Pope at the point of the Schism because if he was then the rest of the Bishops would have naturally followed his lead by adding this phrase into the creed because he would have been the theological supreme. However, not a single bishop followed this move and thus the Bishop of Rome did not have the power he believed himself to have (and the power which protestant historians credit to him).
I am not intentionally trying to take an Eastern line on this subject, this is just what makes the most sense to me. I think that our historians are reading church history ignoring the concept of "order of primacy" and are thus misconstruing our perception of church history. Yes, I admit I could be wrong, these scholars have much more training than I, but somehow this seems to make the most sense, especially after growing up seeing church history with western eyes and now trying to view it with eastern eyes.
----------
Well I think that's all I'm going to post for now. I'm tired and need to go to bed. Hopefully I'll post a little more frequently.
Blessings,
Ben
-------Thoughts from the Road------
I found myself in Dayton, OH on the days immediately preceding the 4th of July and had and interesting conversation with one of the guys that works occasional weekends with our company. He found out I was studying to be a pastor and was trying to strike up conversation with me when he asked "What do you think about those new churches people are going to now?" I replied that I didn't know what he meant, to which he replied: "You know, those new churches like Quest and [another large church in our area]. I realized that both of these churches were well known for being "seeker churches" in fact the people at Quest define themselves solely as a "seeker church". I tried to control myself and not launch into a long lecture on the evils of seeker churches and how they are destroying the very fabric of the church, so I told him something ot the effect of "I guess they're ok, I personally don't enjoy them, but you know..."
His response (the reason for retelling this story) was: "Yeah, I don't like them, I really don't get much from them. They're no real message to em." When he said that I about fell off of the case I was sitting on. It just blew me away that this guy who wouldn't call himself a Christian who doesn't claim to live the Christian life or anything along those lines, is repulsed by the seeker churches in the area. It seems that he would rather have the church be the church instead of trying to mask itself and pretend that it is something it's not (entertainment). I just find it amazing that the people these seeker churches are trying to reach aren't interested in them because they're not Christian enough. Crazy!!
I'll avoid getting on my soap box again and allow the above comments to suffice. I just thought it was a cool story.
----- Thoughts on the 4th of July----
Yes, I know it was a while ago, but it still burns me up. It it wasn't for the super-cool combination of fireworks and BBQs I'm very sure I would hate the 4th of July. I don't hate it because I hate America or anything like that. My biggest problem with Independence day is the reaction the protestant church in America has to it. I firmly believe that the Sunday closest to the 4th of July is the most syncretistic day in all of Protestantism. It is a day when we mesh our worship of a Holy and Triune God with our worship for our nation-state. We, as a church, take this Sunday as an opportunity to jump on the "hooray America" bandwagon and become idolators of our nation.
Frankly this syncretism makes me want to vomit. I am not opposed to being patriotic and I am not opposed to supporting our nation's leaders and things of that nature. But there is absolutly no way that the people of God should be so enamoured with a nation-state, whether it be the USA, England, Iraq, or even the political nation of Israel. To be completely supportive of a nation-state is to lose sight of the kingdom of which we are true citizens - namely the Kingdom of God.
There is also absolutly no way that the work of the people of God (the truest sense of liturgy) should be bastardized with hymning any nation! Yes, it is meet and right to thank God for our freedoms and it is good that we should praise him for the blessing of a stable govermental system surrounding us, but we cannot allow that to be the focal point of our liturgy on the Sunday of Independence day, or on any Sunday. I would even go so far as to argue that to sing patriotic songs in the church is a corruption of the purpose for the gathering of the church.
This problem is not isolated to merely the 4th of July, no, this syncretism runs deep within American Christianity and we must begin to uproot it and rid ourselves of it. We must always remember that our hearts and our homes are not of this or any nation-state, we are citizens of the Kingdom of God. Our citizenship is sealed by partaking of our Lord's death. No one and no nation can lay claim upon us except the one into who's death we have been baptized - our glorious bridegroom Jesus Christ.
------- Topics from the list --------
On my last post I put a list of things I was thinking about at the bottom. Here is one of them.
My church history musings:
A while back I got into a discussion about the start of the papacy with some friends and the issue has been nagging me ever since. Most protestant historians date the start of the papacy with Leo the Great (approx. 450ad) some scholars date this earlier and some a little later, but this seems to be the time of general concensus.
My contention is that there could not have been a "Pope" in the way most would understand it until after the Great Schism (1054). I think that any assertion of a papacy before this date is due to anachronistic and westernly biased reading of the early church documents. Although the common arguments for the papacy first originated with Leo the Great it is very clear from reading church history that he is not taken as the supreme bishop. His word does not sway all the other bishops and he does not have the power to control all the other regions of the church. It is my thought that protestant scholars have read church history through a western lens for so long that they fail to understand the eastern idea of "order of primacy." Order of primacy simly means that one is the highest among equals. In other words if the Roman bishop (Leo) had the highest order of primacy he would not have more power than the other bishops, but his opinion would have been held with a little (note little) more weight than some of the others. This does not imply that he has more power, it is just an issue of respect.
I may have not explained that clear enough, but this is what I think we have in the case of Leo and the other early bishops of Rome that the protestant scholars like to refer to as popes. To be clear it is obviously absurd to think that the Great Schism happened and "poof" we have a pope. Yes, this was a growing political force which finally came to a head when the Bishop of Rome acted upon the power he thought he had and inserted a phrase into the Nicene Creed.
I argue that the Bishop of Rome could not have been a true Pope at the point of the Schism because if he was then the rest of the Bishops would have naturally followed his lead by adding this phrase into the creed because he would have been the theological supreme. However, not a single bishop followed this move and thus the Bishop of Rome did not have the power he believed himself to have (and the power which protestant historians credit to him).
I am not intentionally trying to take an Eastern line on this subject, this is just what makes the most sense to me. I think that our historians are reading church history ignoring the concept of "order of primacy" and are thus misconstruing our perception of church history. Yes, I admit I could be wrong, these scholars have much more training than I, but somehow this seems to make the most sense, especially after growing up seeing church history with western eyes and now trying to view it with eastern eyes.
----------
Well I think that's all I'm going to post for now. I'm tired and need to go to bed. Hopefully I'll post a little more frequently.
Blessings,
Ben
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Community, Hosts, Guests, Strangers, and the Marginalized
The above title seems to be the best description of the thoughts that have been running through my mind since yesterday and that came to some sort of explainable and understandable pinnacle today. For the sake of simplicity I should probably start at the beginning, although even the order of events is a bit convoluted.
In chapel yesterday and today (which was again awesome!) we (the new students) were repeatedly told that we are no longer considered guests, but friends who are part of the Asbury community and even hosts in community. Although that is the reality anytime anyone moves to a community, (especially a new academic institution) it is seldom acted out or even said. Often "freshmen" or incoming students are unintentionally (or possibly intentionally) alienated until they prove themselves worthy to be a functioning part of the community. I found this exhortation to be incredibly touching. The request that a few of the new students serve as communion stewards for the first community Eucharist celebration to be held when the returning students arrive was also very moving, it truly shows to me that we are functioning members of the community, we are part of the formation that goes on in this place. We are truly no longer guests but comprise an essential part of the community. What an awesome revelation!
However awesome that revelation may be, the true epiphany connected with this happened later in the day (actually later than the second thing I will write about, but while we're here I might as well discuss this).
The epiphany is this: It is a shame that we in the church do not take this same stance. When a new people come to faith, we make them prove themselves before we really welcome them into the community. We make them prove that they are good enough, clean enough, respected enough in the world, rich enough or any number of other things before we accept them as hosts in the story that we live in. I'm not saying that we don't need to make sure our ministers are trained and godly before we thrust them in ministry (the church has always done that) but to make people prove themselves before we allow them to enter into the Church (in the purest sense of the word) is ridiculous and down right sinful! There should not be this trial period where we place the world's values of acceptance over Christ's values. Christ's values of acceptance should be the only values the Church holds. We need to stop living with this prideful, sinful, filthy, judgmental way of thinking and accept new converts as "one of us." Yes they may struggle, yes they have learning to do, but so do we all, including the ministers and the elder members of our churches. We need to stop requiring people to be "good enough" before they are part of us. If you think about it honestly, not a single freaking one of us is good enough. It is by grace and grace alone that we have been saved. Yes we are part of the kingdom and we should and better act like it, but placing these ungodly value systems on people before we accept them is not acting like who we are called to be.
The second thought from today occurred during an orientation session with Dr. Joel Green. He started his session by reading 1 Peter 1:1-2, which reads:
Dr. Green briefly exegeted this passage, mainly verse 1, stating that there was a fundamental translation error in the NRSV. He stated that it should not be read as being written to those who are part of the "exiles of the dispersion", rather it should be read as to who Peter wrote it. You see, according to Dr. Green, those were the recipeients of the letter, but Peter was chiefly writing to the WHOLE Church, including us. We know this because, 1) one of the places in the geography list didn't even exist, and 2) it is not "exiles in the dispersion...Who are chosen" but rather a unique word that is hard to translate in English because it is two words mushed together meaning "the marginalized (exiled) chosen ones." Peter isn't saying: "I'm writing to so and so," on the contrary he is writing to all Christians because by our very nature WE ARE THE MARGINALIZED CHOSEN ONES. That is our identity, that is who we are! So often we want to remember that we are chosen, but along with our chosen-ness we have to rememer that we are by nature marginalized, exiled, and dispersed from the world. We don't belong here. We don't live by the worlds standards because we are different, our identity has changed, we are no longer the "Simons" of the world, we are now the "Peters" upon whom Christ shall build his church (Mark 8).
We are forever a blood covered people, a people who don't belong. We do live as aliens because the nature of our salvation takes us out of the world and into Christ. This is our sanctification, this is our calling, this is our life and our identity. We are the Community of faith that stretches back to the Apostles, the Prophets, to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. We are hosts in this community, and yet visitors and marginalized from the world. We live as aliens who don't belong and who should be set apart for holiness. The question is, why don't we act like it? That is the apostolic exhortation that we find throughout scripture: "You're a sanctified people, you are in Christ, now start acting like it!" Paul, Peter, John, not to mention Jesus, they all call us to live beyond ourselves, to die to who we are so that we would be truly sanctified, and act like the true people of God.
I fear the problem is that the church has forgotten this. A large majority of the church has forgotten that we don't belong. We've set ungodly social standards and require others to fit those molds, we neglect those who are marginalized by society because we aren't. I am very scared that many "Christians" will hear Jesus say those most dreaded words: "depart from me for I never knew you." Maybe you think that I am going too far? Maybe my standard is to harsh? I don't believe so. Yes, I don't live up to it yet, but I'm striving. We must be holy! Holiness for the people of God is not merely personal holiness, but also social holiness. If you don't think I'm speaking truth then read the words of the prophets and the words of Jesus. Holiness is always a personal and corporate entity. Just as we cannot neglect personal holiness (as some of our liberal friends have) we cannot ignore social holiness (as most of conservative "Christianity" has). John Wesley recognized this when he said something to the affect of "there is no salvation without social holiness."
Western Christianity needs to put down weak and unformational books like the Purpose Driven Life, the Prayer of Jabez, Your Best Life Now, Left Behind and many others and pick up the freaking Bible! True biblical Christianity is dying in the west. Our churches do not teach the FULL Gospel of Jesus Christ. We neglect the poor, the needy, and the downtrodden and justify living in our plush American homes. We even neglect personal holiness, we neglect teaching about true love, we neglect teaching about obedience to the cross, dying to self and being willing to die at any minute. Bigger churches keep getting bigger, not because we are seeing multitudes lead to the Lord as in the book of Acts, but because they teach a weak gospel. They teach a gospel that looks nothing like the gospel of Jesus Christ. Their gospel is one that is easy to follow, it allows minimal sacrifice and no discomfort at all, except getting up to go to 1 hour of "church as week."
Churches like Lakewood with John Osteen, Saddelback with Rich Warren, Willow Creek with Bill Hybels and Eastern Hills Wesleyan with Karl Eastlack are not churches, they are not part of Christianity, no they are a cult! They teach a false teaching that is destroying the gospel of Christ. People are not being brought into the Kingdom of God, the very thing that Jesus spent most of his ministry teaching about, no, they are being brought into that church and that church alone, that is a sign of a cult.
Don't for a second think that I'm just against big churches, although I do have that bias, little churches too have just as many problems and propagate false teaching. But some and I think many small churches are small because they are faithful to the teachings of Jesus. The true teachings of Jesus are hard, they are foolishness to the world and contrary to everything our culture stands for. We must grab ahold of Jesus teachings and not let go. We must remember that we are by nature a marginalized people, we don't fit in with the world and to allow the world to set our lines for success is wrong and sinful.
I know that most of you who will read this feel the same way as I do, and for that I apologize for my soapbox, but I am so sick of complacent western "Christianity" I feel like I could scream. For those of you who may read this and don't agree with me and feel I've gone to far by naming names, books, and churches among other things; I say that I'm sorry if I've offended you , but I feel that I've spoken truth. Maybe I should have been easier on some of the churches, but I wasn't.
My prayer for all of you this day is that you may live as hosts in the community of God, serving and loving his people. That you would love the marginalized by the world, and remember that you are marginalized by the world because of the cross you carry. Peace be with you as you carry that cross, may the weight of it continue to spur you on toward holiness both personal and social. Remember only the holy are truly happy.
Blessings my friends!
In chapel yesterday and today (which was again awesome!) we (the new students) were repeatedly told that we are no longer considered guests, but friends who are part of the Asbury community and even hosts in community. Although that is the reality anytime anyone moves to a community, (especially a new academic institution) it is seldom acted out or even said. Often "freshmen" or incoming students are unintentionally (or possibly intentionally) alienated until they prove themselves worthy to be a functioning part of the community. I found this exhortation to be incredibly touching. The request that a few of the new students serve as communion stewards for the first community Eucharist celebration to be held when the returning students arrive was also very moving, it truly shows to me that we are functioning members of the community, we are part of the formation that goes on in this place. We are truly no longer guests but comprise an essential part of the community. What an awesome revelation!
However awesome that revelation may be, the true epiphany connected with this happened later in the day (actually later than the second thing I will write about, but while we're here I might as well discuss this).
The epiphany is this: It is a shame that we in the church do not take this same stance. When a new people come to faith, we make them prove themselves before we really welcome them into the community. We make them prove that they are good enough, clean enough, respected enough in the world, rich enough or any number of other things before we accept them as hosts in the story that we live in. I'm not saying that we don't need to make sure our ministers are trained and godly before we thrust them in ministry (the church has always done that) but to make people prove themselves before we allow them to enter into the Church (in the purest sense of the word) is ridiculous and down right sinful! There should not be this trial period where we place the world's values of acceptance over Christ's values. Christ's values of acceptance should be the only values the Church holds. We need to stop living with this prideful, sinful, filthy, judgmental way of thinking and accept new converts as "one of us." Yes they may struggle, yes they have learning to do, but so do we all, including the ministers and the elder members of our churches. We need to stop requiring people to be "good enough" before they are part of us. If you think about it honestly, not a single freaking one of us is good enough. It is by grace and grace alone that we have been saved. Yes we are part of the kingdom and we should and better act like it, but placing these ungodly value systems on people before we accept them is not acting like who we are called to be.
The second thought from today occurred during an orientation session with Dr. Joel Green. He started his session by reading 1 Peter 1:1-2, which reads:
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ and to be sprinkled with his blood: May grace and peace be yours in abundance. (NRSV)
Dr. Green briefly exegeted this passage, mainly verse 1, stating that there was a fundamental translation error in the NRSV. He stated that it should not be read as being written to those who are part of the "exiles of the dispersion", rather it should be read as to who Peter wrote it. You see, according to Dr. Green, those were the recipeients of the letter, but Peter was chiefly writing to the WHOLE Church, including us. We know this because, 1) one of the places in the geography list didn't even exist, and 2) it is not "exiles in the dispersion...Who are chosen" but rather a unique word that is hard to translate in English because it is two words mushed together meaning "the marginalized (exiled) chosen ones." Peter isn't saying: "I'm writing to so and so," on the contrary he is writing to all Christians because by our very nature WE ARE THE MARGINALIZED CHOSEN ONES. That is our identity, that is who we are! So often we want to remember that we are chosen, but along with our chosen-ness we have to rememer that we are by nature marginalized, exiled, and dispersed from the world. We don't belong here. We don't live by the worlds standards because we are different, our identity has changed, we are no longer the "Simons" of the world, we are now the "Peters" upon whom Christ shall build his church (Mark 8).
We are forever a blood covered people, a people who don't belong. We do live as aliens because the nature of our salvation takes us out of the world and into Christ. This is our sanctification, this is our calling, this is our life and our identity. We are the Community of faith that stretches back to the Apostles, the Prophets, to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. We are hosts in this community, and yet visitors and marginalized from the world. We live as aliens who don't belong and who should be set apart for holiness. The question is, why don't we act like it? That is the apostolic exhortation that we find throughout scripture: "You're a sanctified people, you are in Christ, now start acting like it!" Paul, Peter, John, not to mention Jesus, they all call us to live beyond ourselves, to die to who we are so that we would be truly sanctified, and act like the true people of God.
I fear the problem is that the church has forgotten this. A large majority of the church has forgotten that we don't belong. We've set ungodly social standards and require others to fit those molds, we neglect those who are marginalized by society because we aren't. I am very scared that many "Christians" will hear Jesus say those most dreaded words: "depart from me for I never knew you." Maybe you think that I am going too far? Maybe my standard is to harsh? I don't believe so. Yes, I don't live up to it yet, but I'm striving. We must be holy! Holiness for the people of God is not merely personal holiness, but also social holiness. If you don't think I'm speaking truth then read the words of the prophets and the words of Jesus. Holiness is always a personal and corporate entity. Just as we cannot neglect personal holiness (as some of our liberal friends have) we cannot ignore social holiness (as most of conservative "Christianity" has). John Wesley recognized this when he said something to the affect of "there is no salvation without social holiness."
Western Christianity needs to put down weak and unformational books like the Purpose Driven Life, the Prayer of Jabez, Your Best Life Now, Left Behind and many others and pick up the freaking Bible! True biblical Christianity is dying in the west. Our churches do not teach the FULL Gospel of Jesus Christ. We neglect the poor, the needy, and the downtrodden and justify living in our plush American homes. We even neglect personal holiness, we neglect teaching about true love, we neglect teaching about obedience to the cross, dying to self and being willing to die at any minute. Bigger churches keep getting bigger, not because we are seeing multitudes lead to the Lord as in the book of Acts, but because they teach a weak gospel. They teach a gospel that looks nothing like the gospel of Jesus Christ. Their gospel is one that is easy to follow, it allows minimal sacrifice and no discomfort at all, except getting up to go to 1 hour of "church as week."
Churches like Lakewood with John Osteen, Saddelback with Rich Warren, Willow Creek with Bill Hybels and Eastern Hills Wesleyan with Karl Eastlack are not churches, they are not part of Christianity, no they are a cult! They teach a false teaching that is destroying the gospel of Christ. People are not being brought into the Kingdom of God, the very thing that Jesus spent most of his ministry teaching about, no, they are being brought into that church and that church alone, that is a sign of a cult.
Don't for a second think that I'm just against big churches, although I do have that bias, little churches too have just as many problems and propagate false teaching. But some and I think many small churches are small because they are faithful to the teachings of Jesus. The true teachings of Jesus are hard, they are foolishness to the world and contrary to everything our culture stands for. We must grab ahold of Jesus teachings and not let go. We must remember that we are by nature a marginalized people, we don't fit in with the world and to allow the world to set our lines for success is wrong and sinful.
I know that most of you who will read this feel the same way as I do, and for that I apologize for my soapbox, but I am so sick of complacent western "Christianity" I feel like I could scream. For those of you who may read this and don't agree with me and feel I've gone to far by naming names, books, and churches among other things; I say that I'm sorry if I've offended you , but I feel that I've spoken truth. Maybe I should have been easier on some of the churches, but I wasn't.
My prayer for all of you this day is that you may live as hosts in the community of God, serving and loving his people. That you would love the marginalized by the world, and remember that you are marginalized by the world because of the cross you carry. Peace be with you as you carry that cross, may the weight of it continue to spur you on toward holiness both personal and social. Remember only the holy are truly happy.
Blessings my friends!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
