Ladies and Gentlemen,
First off, I would like to apologize for the lapse in chapel blogs of late, I took the week off only partly due to an obscene personal schedule. Secondly, I would like to apologize for continuing to neglect chapel as what I am about to say has little to do with it.
The thing that I would like to communicate today is that God is indeed good. I know, we've heard it all before, but still. Recently I've been living a life, a good one, but one of despair. I've not been desperate as such, but rather consigned to the 'fact' that life is too much. I have been overwhelmed and frustrated and fed up with people, school, work, myself, and pretty much everything. I even composed a poem the other day which I read over today and was quite amazed at how tragically sad and hopeless it seemed. So, over the past week or so I began to complain to God. I know, very mature. Anyways, He came through as He never ceases to surprisingly do. Today culminated a series of events that I cannot begin to explain in detail, but God essentially blitzed me with a parade of wise people such as God, pastors, teachers, family, nondescript people I don't know but have to listen to, and dear friends who've all said everything to me at the right time in the right way which was always exactly what I needed to hear. I've always considered myself an optimist, and times like this just go to confirm the validity of such a disposition.
I realize the cryptic nature of this post, but I'd rather not bore you with the mundane details, I just wanted to give you the basic rundown of merely one small way in which God is and remains good. You may consider yourself encouraged.
In Christ,
Peter Ellison
Monday, November 2, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Doubt, Salvation, and Doubting Our View of Salvation
Once again, it’s time to talk about two chapels in one post. It’s just me (Tim) today. Peter seems to have actual responsibilities that this week amount to like six papers. So it is up to me. I realize we’re getting very slow in posting these days. Also, I’m writing this in the afternoon, so my brain is well past its peak activity period, so I apologize for whatever may come next.
Friday 10/23/09 – Doubt
Last Wednesday, I didn’t go to chapel because I was locked in a little room taking the GRE. I did, however, turn on my phone afterwards to find messages telling me that I missed a great chapel. It was Dale Durie and he was doing one of his storytelling chapels. That seems to be his thing and I always enjoy it. Friday was a continuation of his storytelling. I don’t know what he talked about on Wednesday, or who his character was, but on Friday he was Thomas talking about doubt. I really liked it a lot.
First of all, I love storytelling. I think it’s an amazing way to communicate and in contemporary society, we just write instead of telling. So when someone does tell a story in some way, shape, or form, I really like it. I don’t have much to say I guess about the story itself, other than it was a little bit different of a perspective than we’re used to hearing. He talked about the Last Supper and resurrection, mostly.
He said some things about doubt that I appreciated. I have to say I’ve never really had objections to doubts, nor have I understood anyone who feels that doubts are terrible. Dale pointed out that doubts don’t necessarily destroy faith, but if it’s done well, it can deepen faith. This is been my experience in life. He also said what he thought “doubting well” means.
Thomas doubted in community and he dared to ask the tough questions. I think these are both really important things. When we doubt and have tough questions, it’s easier to keep them to ourselves. But when we ask them in community, it can deepen the faith of all of us. Dale had us take out our phones and text someone a doubt that we had. Of course, I was unable to think of anything at the time because thinking takes me several hours, but I still felt like it was a really cool exercise. What if we did share our doubts and uncertainties? How far would that go to not only help us answer them, but to help us to know and have authentic relationships with those around us? Let’s doubt well.
Monday 10/26/09 – Salvation, I think
Matt talked today about Zacchaeus. I’m not entirely sure what the official topic was. I didn’t quite follow the stated flow of the message, but I did enjoy it and thought it was good. He said he was going to solve a couple of issues: the “once saved always saved” question and the “is salvation by grace or by works” question. I must have missed the part where he talked about the first, or else it was woven throughout and I wasn’t paying close enough attention. Both likely possibilities, given the fact that today is Monday. This chapel was filled with fun videos and such. Very engaging, I thought, even if I didn’t make all the connections from one thing to the next.
He essentially talked about what salvation is, which sort of encompasses both those questions, I suppose. He pointed out that Jesus said that through Zacchaeus’ actions, he had shown himself to be a true son of Abraham. He was saved. But he didn’t pray a prayer or anything to do so. So what was salvation? He said that Zacchaeus was saved because of his obedience, which resulted from repentance in his heart. I really liked this way of putting it. He then listed several things that salvation is: repentance, repair and restoration, action, and rescue. Again, I liked this. I’m tired of the “believe in Jesus” monkeybusiness that we learn in Sunday school. Let’s do something different so that we don’t all feel like cognitive belief is all there is to it, and then spend years wondering why it doesn’t seem to be enough.
Not too long ago, I was talking to a friend about the “sinner’s prayer,” or what some of us refer to as "the magic prayer." Most of us who grew up in Evangelical families can often point back to the moment we prayed that prayer as the moment we got saved. And maybe it was, I don’t know. And I’m not saying that it’s a horrible thing, I’m just saying I don’t think salvation is that simple. It’s ongoing. It’s not a cognitive recognition of who Jesus is, like we like to say it is.
Salvation is a choice for obedience. We don’t often obey. One of the professors I’ve had is fond of pointing out that in a number of cases where Paul’s words are translated “faith in Christ,” that phrase would perhaps better be translated “faithfulness of Christ.” Jesus was obedient/faithful to the Father and that is how salvation entered the world. And we are “in Christ” as Paul likes to say. We have to obey, not just acknowledge. I don’t think anyone would argue with me about that, but it doesn’t seem to happen all that often.
The same friend recently reminded me that at times, I live in something of an alternate universe. And it’s true. I spend the majority of my time shirking the very few responsibilities I do have and instead spending my time playing sports, watching sports, having nerf wars with my roommates, having all my needs met by others for a nominal fee, and generally just goofing around. I mostly play, and it’s so fun! And I don’t those things are bad, but they can’t be the only thing I do with my life. I think that a lot of Christians live in an alternate universe, too. We do our daily thing and we don’t see what goes on around us. Most of us don’t have to because it’s hidden behind the scenes, or even behind the masks we all wear.
I submit that if we even acted out our salvation a little bit, we’d see so much more than we do. I’m not even talking chiefly about the impoverished and homeless and abused, which we are clearly called to help (though most of us still don’t). What about the person on your left and your right every day? What about the people like Zacchaeus who make their salaries by cheating the system and taking advantage of others? They need to God’s love, too. We need to act out our salvation for them and to see them as God does. Our mission isn’t primarily to “get saved” so we can avoid worrying about where we’ll go when we die. That would be an insult to the Gospel. We are the Kingdom, so who will act it out if not us?
“Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose”
As a side note, Matt mentioned that the Freeset guy is going to be here on Thursday night at 7 in the Underground. He was really good last year when he came and the ministry is amazing. Check it out at http://www.freesetglobal.com/. Anyone want to go with me? Also, there’s an interreligious dialogue thing coming up on the 3rd, I think? People should go to that, too!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Reconciliation Chapel: take two
Tim: Ross talked today. A friend told me as I headed to chapel that it was another reconciliation and I said “ohhh boy.” But I have to hand it to Ross, except for one little part that I didn’t think really fit into the message, I would have to say it was one of the better reconciliation messages I have heard. I will address my issue first and get that out of the way.
In the midst of pointing out that we want the benefits of reconciliation with God, but without the cost, he went on a short spiel about how some people who go to church think “oh I don’t like this music” or “I don’t like this pastor” so they go somewhere else. Some people even come to chapel and then walk away and say things like “that message just didn’t speak to me” so they don’t like that chapel. Such people, he said, are being selfish and individualistic. Naturally, I thought of this blog, which of course is a shining model of that very thing. Now I think I get what he’s getting at, and I agree that church and worship is not all about us.
But, isn’t there some aspect of our relationship to God that relates to us as individuals as well? Further, if I’m in a church that never challenges me or encourages spiritual growth in me because the messages are all terrible, am I just supposed to sit there and suffer because to desire a challenge in my life from my fellow churchgoers would be selfish? A lot of messages in my life “just weren’t for me” at the time. That only reflects selfishness if you already believe it’s all about you. Just because I express that a message didn’t hit me where I may have most needed it, it doesn’t mean I think that it’s a worthless message. Neither church nor chapel should be set up to cater to one particular person. But I hope it should, at one time or another, engage everyone. By expressing the particular times it doesn’t, we don’t have to be being selfish. Perhaps we’re just reacting and maybe even that will stimulate some good discussion about the topic.
Having said all that, I have to say that I loved the rest of his message. He talked about a couple aspects of this issue that I don’t hear about often. One was self-reconciliation. This, I think is huge. Forgiving ourselves. I have said in previous posts how I feel about living in constant guilt. I think we need to forgive ourselves and reconcile with ourselves in a way, as weird as that sounds.
A second thing he mentioned was that we want is the benefits of reconciliation with God, but not the cost. We want our reconciliation with God to be nothing more than a cognitive recognition of what he did for us on the cross. I agree that this is pretty common and I can see it in my own life as well. Jesus doesn’t say “take up your cross and acknowledge me,” he says “take up your cross and FOLLOW me.” We don’t like doing it, but we can’t just cognitively believe in Christ, we have to BE in Christ. “Abide in me” he says.
The third thing he said was something I really liked as well. He talked about our tendency to attack various symptoms of our sin infection (or nature, if you prefer). We attack things like lust and racism. But they keep growing back. He said something I have tried to express many times, which is “if we could defeat the sin nature through the blood of Christ, racism would take care of itself.” Reconciliation is so much deeper than attacking racism. It is attacking the sin engrained in us and our world. I’m not saying we shouldn’t fight the symptoms, but that we need to attack the disease if we really want to get anywhere substantial. Of course, that’s not easy to do.
Peter: Today chapel was about ‘the God who reconciles.’ He laid out a three-tiered philosophy of reconciliation including reconciling to ourselves, reconciling to God, and reconciling to others. He spent relatively little time on the first two. Surprise, surprise the emphasis fell on the third aspect of reconciliation: reconciling with others. He made a few intriguing and a few less such points.
First I would hearken back to what Tim mentioned about not always liking all the songs, sermons, or whatever in various worship venues. When he mentioned that Tim and I made eye contact because we both thought immediately of this blog. I agree with Tim, in that just because certain songs or sermons don’t resonate or relate to me in particular doesn’t mean I’m anti-reconciliatory. Enough said.
Second, I almost choked when I heard him talk about sins at the end of the night, not because he aid anything particularly odd. Mostly because he mentioned greed, and how we tend to pass certain sins off while concentrating on others… and he was like ‘greed, meh, we’re Americans, I mean, everyone does it, so it’s not that bad…’ and he went on to the next sin. The reason it stuck out overtly so was because of what he had said not five minutes prior. He had been talking about how the devil uses all categorization to create enmity, and how we use categorization to create labels to in turn control others. Well, if that is true, why does he categorize Americans as ‘greedy’ to make a point to tell us how to think. That being said I somewhat disagree with most of what he said about categorization. Just the idea that categorization isn’t a good thing Is, I think, bogus. It is how humans think. If we didn’t form categories or stereotypes we would function on such a low level. I do agree that they can be abused, which is what Manders was talking about. I don’t think, however, that stereotypes in and of themselves are ‘bad.’
Lastly, I admired greatly his conclusion. He stated that we have an errant tendency to concentrate on individual sins, some over others, instead of focusing on the root problem, that is, ‘the sin nature.’ If you read an earlier post of mine, you will know that I am undecided as to what exactly the sin nature is, however I would agree that the root of sin is deeper than sin itself, and that is where one’s energies should be concentrated, as Ross purports. However that being said, although all sin is equally sin, I would say there is good reason for treating the sins with varying degrees of attention. We should always treat the evil, but like I’ve stated in earlier posts, I don’t know if you can separate the evil from the sin. Maybe you can, but I don’t know how.
Do Not Be Afraid
Peter: Fear. Fear is real for many people, if not all people. As the saying goes, ‘of course I am afraid, what sane man isn’t?’ There is a deep truth to this, and as deep a truth in Jesus, who says to not be afraid. I thought it was interesting that Laurel
A second question I have is what in the world did Laurel mean by saying she believes that it is our ‘job to run full steam into culture, church, relationships, society, and Satan.’? She started by saying that she believes that daily we are ‘called’ not to fear. She also said that we must know the word of God in order to wrestle with our fears that we don’t have anymore… and finished off by saying we need to run full steam into all of these random places such as relationships, because, why, I don’t know, he’s on third and I just don’t understand. I mean, it could very well be that I wasn’t following her properly, but I’m also at a complete loss as to how she got from one point to the next, and how in the world this ties in with fear. Is this her way of saying we need to ‘face our fears’ because Jesus calls us to ‘be not afraid’?
Lastly, she stated in her conclusion that fear and faith have a lot in common, and proceeded to state how, besides relating to the unseen, they were opposites. Besides that being an amusing coupling of statements, it was intriguing. I guess I’ve always considered doubt more of an opposite of faith than fear. Laurel
In conclusion, I apologize for not really saying anything and merely asking questions, but in this case I have few opinions and many questions. That being said, I don’t really know what to think of fear. I don’t consider myself a person racked with fears, but according to Laurel
Tim: The message was about fear. I will be perfectly honest, I don’t remember much about it, because I was slow in writing this, so other than the few things I scribbled down out the time, I haven’t got a lot. This is probably good for everyone else, because that means I won’t ramble so long. I won’t say much about this one, because my notes don’t help me much in remembering and to go off a few lines I remember nothing about would not do justice to the message. I remember only a couple things, really.
First, I remember that she talked about being just overcome with fear, to the point of being paralyzed. She asked us if we had ever felt that way. I can’t think of a time that I ever have. I don’t know, am I supposed to have felt that way? I have been nervous almost to the point of being paralyzed, but I don’t know if I’ve been afraid like that. She also mentioned a number of common things that people are afraid of, like failure, disappointing God, etc. I guess I’m afraid of those things, maybe? But I don’t know if it’s fear.
That brought me to the question that I pondered the rest of the time. What exactly is fear in comparison to, say, nervousness or worry? I’m always worried that I will goof something up or never find a job, but I don’t know that I would say I’m afraid. I remember some of my more traumatic first days of school upon moving to America
The last thing I remember is that she said that fear and faith are similar: they both demonstrate a belief in what we can’t see. But fear says no and faith says yes (I’m assuming that means fear tells us everything will be terrible and faith tells us otherwise). I hadn’t really thought about that before, and it was a cool perspective.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Forgiveness, among other things...
Tim: Forgiveness was the word of the day. Jay Barnes spoke. I love when he speaks because he is so open and honest about himself and his experiences. As always, he was sweet. He’s Jay Barnes after all! I don’t have much to say about this message, though, mostly because I was a little out of it during chapel. I was super tired and struggling to stay awake while I fretted over whether or not I am doomed to get swine flu just in time to take the GRE. Unfortunately those things were sufficient to consume the majority of my attention.
I won’t talk about the message overall other than to say it was about forgiveness and that I had trouble following it at points. But I do want to comment on a couple things he said. The first thing that I thought was cool was that he made a connection between God’s love and forgiveness. He talked about the woman washing Jesus’ feet with her tears and he pointed out that to her, his love and grace were much more real than to others. She was acutely aware of her sinfulness, so she felt God’s love deeply. The Pharisees were blissfully unaware of their issues or their need to be forgiven, and thus had little interest in God’s love. A lot of times we’re like the Pharisees, he said. We don’t honestly think about how dependent we are on God’s forgiveness and his love. I thought that was an interesting point that we might not think about very often.
He also said “God is never going to think of our sins, but it’s sure easy for us to remember them.” This stood out to me because it reminded me of something that my theology teacher said two years ago. He told us that there is no place for guilt in the Christian walk. Our guilt takes control of us and ultimately, it drags us back into sin. I didn’t know how to feel about this, because I had always devoted a good deal of time and energy to feeling guilty about past indiscretions. Guilt was almost like proof of repentance as well as motivation to improve. He suggested though, that we ought to acknowledge and learn from our mistakes, but then instead of feeling guilty about them, “move on to do the next right thing.” It seemed almost too simple, and certainly not self-deprecating enough to be orthodox! But in the end, I decided he was right, and in some subtle way, it revolutionized my perspective on life.
Among other things, it made me question our focus on not sinning. I’m not saying we shouldn’t avoid sin. I just think sometimes sin is bigger than God to us. I think that I was impeded in my walk for years because all I could think about was avoiding sinning. I see the same thing all around me. For instance, I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard arguments around here regarding whether swearing is bad. If it’s bad we shouldn’t do it; if it’s neutral, we can get away with it. Is the focus really supposed to be on if it’s bad? Shouldn’t our question be “is it GOOD?” If it’s good, then we should do it. If it’s neutral, then I’m not going to object to it, but may be less inclined to participate. Shouldn’t we focus on actively doing what’s good, rather than on not doing what’s bad? I realize I have long since left the topic of forgiveness behind. But what can I say? I go where my mind leads me. It’s now leading me to go find some lunch…
Peter: I’m going to keep my end of this short, because honestly I don’t have much to say, and most of what I would say has been said more eloquently by my esteemed friend Tim. I didn’t have much to say, because honestly Jay didn’t say much. I love Jay, I respect him deeply, but besides a few interesting points here and there, mentioned by Tim, he stated what we all know: God forgives us. It seemed to me, however, to be somewhat of a paradox when put together with Edee’s talk. She emphasized the sin nature over the sin, and said that what’s actually wrong is the sin nature. Well if that’s true then is God forgiving us for our sin nature, and does he not care about the sin? I mean, God looks at the heart, and he’s not a legalistic sort of fellow, and perhaps it’s merely my orthodox upbringing, but I think that God forgives the sin as much as the motive, the actions as well as the heart. Jay seemed to suggest the that God forgives us our sins in the traditional sense of the term, but Edee seemed to suggest that ‘sin’ was not even ‘sinful’ so much as the ‘sin nature’ was. Actually, to be honest I probably just don’t understand either person’s talk. Regardless, I still question the validity of separating the two, in which case it wouldn’t matter. I think sin is as important as sinfulness, because I think that they’re of the same entity. Refer to the trinity if you don’t understand. Obedience is important to God, and from a sincere heart we should examine the merits of our actions, as well as our beliefs, because as the great Batman once said: “…it's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you.” Yes, that just happened. But the main point I guess is that whatever your view of sin, God forgives it. He’s like a sin vacuum. A sin-eating machine. I just find it interesting how our conceptions of sin seem to change depending on the topic. So yeah. According to Jay, and myself, your sins/sinful nature/whatever is/are forgiven by God because God is just that amazing.
Jay used amazing a lot, I’m not sure why besides the fact that he was trying to get us to ‘realize the incredibleness’ of what God has done. Of course, I was talking to a friend afterwards and she said that it was impossible to do so, because it’s more amazing than our conceptualization can conceptualize. This made me wonder why she was frustrated at the people who don’t try to conceptualize God’s amazing forgiveness, because in my eyes they’re just saving themselves a lot of effort in futility. If they can’t understand it even if they did try, their understanding is as complete as anybody else’s understanding, because God’s forgiveness is infinite (east from west). Think about it. Unless we can understand the infinite nature of God’s forgiveness, our understandings of it are equally defective no matter how much effort we put into our understanding.
And in regard to Tim’s last point, I would say that yes, we do need to do what is good, but we also need to not do what is evil. If we are to do unto others as we would have them do unto us I would contend that that includes not doing unto others what we would have them not do unto us. It also follows from the greatest commandments: love the lord your God with all your heart soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. Well, gee, if loving God means respecting authority, and not doing what is evil, well then… yeah. Of course if it doesn’t, then… I’m not sure where I’m going with this. My point is that I don’t think you can separate ‘doing good’ and ‘not doing evil’ as separate entities. I harken back to Isaiah 1:16-7 when God says to ‘stop doing wrong, learn to do what is right.’ The emphasis should be on both sides of the coin, so to speak. So good is, well, good, but it is too narrow of a focus, as is evil. A valid separation could be the legalistic side versus the sincere side of things, which might be what you’re getting at, in which case I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Sin and Us
Today is an exciting day because we have two posts, both of which are late. The Reconciliation one is from last Wednesday (10/7) and this one is from Monday (10/12). We had no school and thus no chapel on the Friday in between. Sorry we were slow.
Edee Schultz spoke today, and I like her style in that she’s funny and sincere all at the same time. Her topic was sin, and she had various things to say about it, the one which I appreciated most being her reference to the sin nature perverting good rather than being an entity unto itself. Personally I subscribe to the Dantesque idea that “The human impulse to love pleasing things is seen as the root of all virtue, but it can also be 'perverted, weakened, or misdirected to become the root of all sin'" (Brown, 1998).
That being said, there were a lot of questions that I had which went unanswered. The use of ‘Christianese’ pervaded Edee’s talk, which does more to convolute what she was saying than clarify. For instance, she used prolifically the term ‘sin nature’ and ‘predisposition to sin’ but failed to clarify where this nature comes from, or why this ‘predisposition’ exists. Why is it a predisposition and not a disposition? What is this ‘sin nature’ entity thing? Albeit they may be more peripheral to her point, but valid questions nonetheless. Recently I’ve been questioning the validity of the ‘dualistic nature.’ Mostly because it comes as difficult to understand. Can one have a ‘sin nature’ and a ‘God-given good nature’ as implied by Edee? That would seem to subscribe to a more Taoistic understanding of good and evil, almost a debased Manichean understanding, but how else would you understand good and evil? On that note, how does evil relate to sin? Are they equivalent? Identical? And if there is a two-nature system, how similar are the natures? If evil is fissiparous as advanced by Edee, why wouldn’t good be fissiparous as well? And if Edee states that ‘evildoing isn’t as big a problem as ‘evilbeing,’ why do we try to deal with evildoing? I question the validity of even drawing the distinction… but I don’t know. Can you separate evildoing with evilbeing? There are just so many questions I could ask, but I’ll stop for now, suffice it to say that Edee got screwed with a very difficult topic in sin, and all things considered she made her point, but a point buried in a host of unanswered questions.
Brown, J., (1998). The Seven Deadly Sins in the Work of Dorothy L. Sayers. Kent: Kent State University Press.
Tim:
First of all…Peter, did you use APA formatting for that reference? It looks suspiciously like it. I really feel that nothing quite lives up to the Chicago style, and it makes me sad inside when I see anything else. I apologize for my rant. I also apologize for my excessive use of analogies, stories and metaphors in the following paragraphs. If you’ve had many discussions with me know this is just how I talk. I realize they only go so far, but I just love them so!
Unlike Peter, I really didn’t have so many questions, so I will try to quickly say a couple that are both a response to Peter’s musings and are things that I wanted to talk about anyway. First, I think we say “sin nature” because it’s the easiest way most people have found to express an extremely difficult concept. If we effectively defined terms, it would consume the whole time period allotted for the message. Related to that, I think when we say we have a “sin nature” and a “good nature,” we are using “nature” differently. It is only a subtle difference, to be sure, but I think it’s important. I think of it something like a genetic disease, say hemophilia. I may be born a hemophiliac. It is part of my nature as me. But at the same time, it is not my nature as a human being. As a human, I was not intended or created to have this condition. Yet, it plays out in my life as if it were. So I guess I think of us having both natures, but one is primal and one is (or was, through Adam) acquired.
Similarly, I think there is a subtle but important distinction between evildoing and “evil being.” The problem is it’s something I don’t know how to express. So I will just tell a story. When I was little, I heard about the “bad” things or sins that weren’t allowed. Like any curious little guy, I grew up and proceeded to do them. During that, I did not question their badness – it was quite apparent in my life. But I knew there was something more about it that I had missed. And it was that it wasn’t the sinful actions that were the major problem. Those were only symptoms of my much more profound failure to live up to the person I was made to be – a person created in God’s image. Now, if I read this several years ago, I would say “duh.” But now, it’s somehow profoundly real. I hesitate to say that I don’t care about people’s sinful actions, but in a sense, I don’t. I care about the causes and effects of those actions in their souls and in their relationships. Similar little story: as a Christian guy, I grew up with the feeling that one of my primary tasks in life was to fight against lust. But as I have grown and seen other guys involved in groups and reading books about how to do this and never making any progress, something just seemed off. And eventually I realized that it’s not about the lust. It’s about filling my heart with God’s love for those around me so that respect, not lust, will win out. It’s about seeing the world through God’s eyes. It’s about crowding out the “evilbeing.” Again, I realize anyone who reads this will be like “well yeah, of course.” I would have for my whole life, but it was never real until I experienced it. But, sadly, it is really impossible to express. I have tried my best…
Finally, I want to go back to what she said about sin perverting good. This is something that I have been thinking about in recent years and something that has become very real. She mentioned something about people being a certain way before they were Christians and still being that way afterwards, and that that is not bad. We often think that we have to change the way we are. I struggled with this for many years. I don’t know how old I was when I realized that my gifts didn’t lie in the areas of, say, encouraging people, asking good questions, engaging in deep relationship. If ever I was supposed to comfort someone, I found myself full of compassion, but staring blankly, wondering what to do. The things I was good at were things like analyzing an argument and picking it apart, or writing, or in picking up on certain subtle distinctions or connections (but definitely not being able to articulate them). I also noticed that the things I was good at often resulted in me hurting people’s feelings, frustrating those around me, or at the very least, immense frustration of my own. None of these seemed like things that were compatible with the Kingdom. I felt that my gifts and God’s work were at odds.
One day, I realized that I really enjoyed being a history major and I could do fairly well at it because I was naturally good at things like picking apart arguments, writing, and making connections. Then it dawned on me that those gifts in my life had been twisted and used in ways that were contrary to God’s work, but that in fact, I could turn around and use them for him. The best part is, as I learn to do that, I have to fight myself less and less. Being able to use my gifts for good gives me immense joy. As that happened, I was able to open myself up for God to develop in me those areas in which I’m less gifted. And, while I’m still at about a 1.5 on a scale of 1-10 in those areas, I’m finally growing in them. As I grow into myself and God uses my gifts, he also begins to fulfill my heart's deepest desires. All this is to say that what she said really resonated with me and I think she’s totally right. And in my opinion, one of the most effective ways Satan keeps us down is by turning our deepest (good) desires and gifts around on us and having them lead us astray. In fact, those desires and gifts that cause us to sin are the same ones through which we can do God’s will and bring about the restoration of this world.
I did a quick Google search on Ps. 37:4, which is the “desires of your heart” verse and got a whole bunch of results about how when you grow in Christ he will change the desires of your heart. There were also pages about how to discover the desires of your heart – things like the desire to love and be loved, or to feel special, or whatever similar things there are in our hearts. We don’t have to change them, we don’t have to discover them. They’re already there and we’re already very familiar with them. When we turn ourselves over to God for his use, he will fulfill those desires.
I apologize for my preaching. I just really liked this message and I wish I could actually express it.
“Delight yourself in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart” – Psalm 37:4
Reconciliation Chapel
Tim: Today was reconciliation day. I have never before attended a reconciliation chapel, because I have never heard good things about them in the past. This year, though, I had heard the speaker was going to be a good one, so I was excited to go. His name is Pete Menjares (I think) and he’s from Biola. He was excellent.
My main issue was the fact that we hardly got to hear him talk. The intro took forever. Then there was a little symbolic ceremony, in which a number of faculty/staff people lifted up a big rope that was supposed to represent taking responsibility for reconciliation. Then at the end, they had ropes down the aisles that we all were supposed to hold, symbolizing that we were all playing a part as well. While I got the idea of it, it still seemed a little strange to me, but that’s probably because I’m not creative enough for symbolism. Mostly, I felt like it took even more time away from the speaker. Grr.
When the message finally arrived, I was quite pleased. He talked about reconciliation in a way that was simple and meaningful, which I always appreciate. He talked about how when he became a Christian, he was such a Bible-thumper that his mom kicked him out of his house. Years later, he came back and apologized. She spoke to him about why she was hard on him as he grew up without a father, and their relationship was healed. They were reconciled. I like that. Maybe the reason I like it is just that it’s simple and heartwarming, without the difficulty of huge social concerns and implications. I don’t know how well his story parallels reconciliation of different groups of people. I guess I just tend to feel like group reconciliation is best going to happen when we all learn to do it individually, with all our neighbors, no matter who they are.
Having mentioned group reconciliation, I have to say that he did an excellent job of reconciling Minnesota’s subtle bitterness toward California when he began by thanking us for giving them Tori Hunter and the Lakers. I liked him immediately! I like people who make me laugh.
On a deeper level, he got me thinking about how I think about reconciliation in the world. Maybe I’m the only one, but for most of my life, when I heard things like “God is reconciling the world him Himself,” I have generally thought in terms of restoring the ability to have relationship with him and to go to heaven. Through Jesus, the barrier was broken down, allowing us to live in relationship with God, and as we spread this news, the entire world is allowed to be reconciled to God. Makes sense, and is true. But should it end there? Some would be so bold as to suggest that God reconciling himself to the world doesn’t end with allowing the restoration of relationship, but includes the actual process and result of that relationship – meaning there are huge social implications.
Now this is just my interpretation, but it sounds to me like the idea here is that “God reconciling the world to Himself” comes to mean God (and His people) actually remaking the world, not just the individual, in His image. I think in our post-World War era, we have kind of lost the idea that there is actually any hope of this, so we focus on individual salvation (in terms of going to heaven) rather than on bringing blessing and deliverance (on every level) to the world. I also think that we are a little scared of this thought, because it can sound an awful lot like Social Gospel. But I think we need to think about it
None of this is anything that hasn’t been said before, but I wonder how often we really think about it. What are our views on this? Is God allowing us to have relationship with him, or is he trying to restore creation as a whole? I would say both, and I’m guessing most people would agree with me. But do we really think and act like it’s both?
Peter: So before this chapel I was talking with a friend about it, and we were exchanging thoughts on the past reconciliation chapels, and as my friend was a reconciliation major I asked if she had any particular thoughts on reconciliation chapel, and of course she did. She said that reconciliation chapel had frustratingly been about racism in past years, which she told me emphatically, was ‘not what reconciliation is about.’ To be sure, the principles of reconciliation apply in a racially charged atmosphere, but in the words of another friend, also a reconciliation major, reconciliation is about bringing together people and people groups with God and with one another who have previously been separated from God or one another.
In the sense that the speaker this year approached reconciliation from this holistic perspective of it, it was a good chapel. Although I would agree with Tim that he had a short time to speak, and that the object lesson either needed work or I’m a defective object lesson person, he did have a simple and to the point talk, with a lot of good things to say. His message culminated in espousing John 17:20 which describes Jesus’ longing that ‘they [we] would be one.’ It is this that I feel like I need a lot of work on, but so do most Christians, at least the ones with high levels of visibility. There are so many ways in which we as Christians divide ourselves, it’s really frustrating. I remember reading in one of the Bethel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)