Short post today. Peter slept through chapel because he worked all night, so it’s just Tim. The speaker was an intern in the campus ministries office. I really enjoyed it. His goal was to talk about the Spirit in terms of practical life. Like in all of this series, I think the thing that was missing is discussion of discernment. However, his message was good, except that he went to college in Green Bay. Down with the Packers!
He talked about legalism in Christianity. He became a Christian when he was a freshman in college and encountered what we think is normal: Christianity’s behavioral expectations. He wondered why we are supposed to not drink or dance or do anything fun. In a British accent, he described many Christians’ Victorian ideas about sex. No, he wasn’t saying that we should sleep around or anything. I give him brownie points for speaking in an accent. It was amusing.
Anyway, he talked about how he grew up idolizing Tupac. If you don’t know who that is, then consider yourself blessed… When he became a Christian, he didn’t understand why people were telling him he wasn’t allowed to listen to that music anymore. He thought that was silly. Why did Christians have all these rules? So he didn’t comply. Then later in life he started to realize, “hey, this music isn’t influencing me in a good way and is getting in the way of my relationship with God.” So, he stopped listening to it. His point was that the Spirit led him to change his life. Legalism didn’t. Our good behavior should be a result of relationship, not rules.
I agree with him. Especially when we grow up in Christian communities, we know what we can’t do, but we never actually have to deal with the reasons why. When we break the rules, we figure it out and the Spirit guides us out. But I think a lot of people struggle with these things and rebel because they never have to deal with them in a real way. We just know they’re bad, even if they aren’t necessarily. Sadly, though, I also think lots of people take it too far the other way and do whatever they want because they don’t like the legalism. As much as I don’t like legalism, we ought to at least consider that those “rules” were made for a reason. Maybe they are too much, but it seems like lots of people discount everything just because they can.
That said, I do still think it’s important that we live guided by the Spirit, not necessarily by rules. But again, what about discretion. There is bound to be that person who thinks the Spirit is calling him to do something like sleep around, but is he really being called to that? I wouldn’t say so. So again my ultimate question is how do we learn to discern. Sometimes it’s easy, but other times it’s not. I have rarely heard anyone tackle that question with any success.
Good job, Intern Guy. And skol Vikings!
Monday, October 5, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
accents, obedience, murderous rampages...
Peter: My parents are missionaries. I respect missionaries, because I believe in what they do, which is to bring God’s love to the peoples of the earth. That is only a part of the reason I’m taking missions for the twenty-first century, a class taught by the man who was my parents’ professor when they were in seminary. In that class and throughout my life I’ve heard of the ‘mission mandates’ of the bible, which is more than just the great commission. Almost all the missionaries or mission books and articles I’ve read reference God’s covenant with Abraham as the beginning of missions. Specifically they mention the fact that God blessed Abraham so that through him all nations may be blessed. This, ‘they’ say is a clear reference to God’s love for all nations and peoples on earth. Evidently that didn’t include the Amalekites. One reason I love reading the Old Testament is because there are so many cool things there that don’t exist in the New Testament. The other reason I love reading is because I find it a lot more difficult to reconcile with the God I know and love. Sometimes impossible.
The guest speaker today spoke of obedience to God; specifically I found intriguing his use of 1 Samuel 15. If you simply look at Saul’s response to God and Samuel, yes, obedience, or disobedience is clearly a theme. However, what about the whole story? Stacey Foster kind of read through the story, and he spent a lot of time assessing where in the story Saul was disobedient, you know, when even though he killed the Amalekite men, women, and children, he ‘didn’t kill what was good.’ As if that wasn’t confusing enough, he mentioned two things about it. First, he went on to relate ‘good things’ in the reference to ‘self-deceit.’ That is, he said that if God says to get rid of something, even if we think it is good, get rid of it. He then mentioned things he used to think of as good, such as cigarettes or whatever, and that he was convinced to get rid of them in his life. And I don’t know if that was a valid application of the passage. To be sure, I would agree with doing what God says, but I also don’t see the relationship between Saul not killing all the Amalekites and their cattle with not smoking. Secondly he did acknowledge the seeming genocide of the Amalekites, but I think by acknowledging it he gave himself less credence, because he essentially said that God said to destroy the Amalekites because He knew they were idolaters, and that Israel was prone to neighboring influences in that arena. Somehow I don’t think killing somebody else because they might be a poor influence on you is justifiable through the bible, yet this is the connection he made. I realize this wasn’t his point; however, it was the justification given for making his point through the text, and I don’t think it was valid.
All that being said, he did make a few profound points that often get overlooked: first, that partial obedience is disobedience. I think that often I fall into this trap myself, enough said. This brings me to the next thing, which is that our actions do matter, and that disobedience to God is wrong. That is, our actions matter.
All that being said, he did make a few profound points that often get overlooked: first, that partial obedience is disobedience. I think that often I fall into this trap myself, enough said. This brings me to the next thing, which is that our actions do matter, and that disobedience to God is wrong. That is, our actions matter.
The one thing I wish he would have mentioned in relation to his points on obedience is that of conscience. I think that is something taken for granted as well, or at the very least overlooked quite often. We spend a lot of time talking about right and wrong, shoulds and shouldn’ts, and we oft mention the fact that the Bible is the measure of all of that. Which it is. However, I would say that beyond the law, beyond the Bible, beyond upbringing, the conscience does much to guide in what is right and wrong. Paul talks about the conscience and its integral role in living life, and he also talks about the fact that God has ‘made himself evident,’ so that there is no excuse for those who do not serve God. Albeit, he also mentions that the conscience can be corrupted, and it is often corrupted, which is what Stacey was describing when he was talking about self-deception. But despite this fact I’ve heard far too many sources ignore the conscience and its role in our lives.
Lastly I just want to go back to the text he used, and there are other texts similar to it. How do I reconcile a God I believe is loving, and who blessed Israel
I apologize for the disorganization of this post, I poorly constructed it.
Tim: Apparently today was “Compassion Day” in chapel. For this special day, we had a guest speaker come from Compassion International. He showed a video clip that I really enjoyed. What stood out to me most was an boy saying, “I want to get a good job so that I can look after my grandparents.” In some ways, I think the wealthy miss more than the poor. If that kid were me or most people in my position, they would be hoping for a good job to make money, live comfortably, and raise a family. I don’t really have a problem with that, but I have a problem with it being our ultimate goal and prize. Getting a job in order to help others just strikes me as a lot more meaningful. Sometimes I’m jealous of poor people. Don’t get me wrong, I want to help deliver people from poverty. I just struggle with the fact that as people come out of poverty, it seems like we trade the values of the impoverished for the demands of the entitled.
May it be known, too, that when narrator started speaking, I pegged her as an Aussie. This makes me 3/3 on accent diagnoses in chapel! No one cares, I know. (Peter: it’s true, he’s impressive at identifying accents.)
Our speaker talked about obeying God. His passage for this was from Samuel, regarding when Saul didn’t completely obey God’s command to completely destroy the Amalekites. His point was essentially that we, like Saul, find ways to avoid complete obedience and incomplete obedience is just not sufficient. We do these four things: refuse to give up our favorite things, live in self-deception, play the blame game, and fail to understand the consequences of our sin. He spoke about how he had done these things in his own life. I would have to say that I have diagnosed at least a couple of them in my own life as strong forces holding me back from what God may be wanting me to do. I think the main thing he called us to do was to identify our “good things,” whether they are relationships, possessions, behaviors – and surrender those things to God. If we don’t kill our disobedience, it will kill us. I have to say, I enjoyed his message and thought that it reflected a lot of truths I have found in my own life.
There were three things, though, that I wonder about. The first two go together. He said we need to “get the man together before we can change the world.” He also said that partial obedience is disobedience. I know what he’s getting at and I agree that we out of our faithfulness to God will come change, and that we need to fully embrace obedience and faithfulness in order to be most effective. But with both of his statements, I wonder kind of the same thing. Can we wait until we’re “together” to try changing the world, and isn’t partial disobedience better than, say, complete disobedience? David didn’t completely obey, but God still calls him a man after His own heart. Granted, he could have done much more for God had he obeyed completely, but I still think he did better than if he never obeyed at all.
I guess I get a feeling sometimes that people think they can’t make a difference until they get their act together completely, which causes them to spend their lives trying to fix themselves and doing very little for the world around them. I have often felt that way myself, but sometimes working to change the world helps us “get ourselves together.” I’m certain he wasn’t suggesting we never do anything for God unless we’re perfect, but I feel like it’s an idea present in our society.
Peter: on this note, this is one of the problems of new churches: they feel like they can’t reach out until they’ve fixed all their internal and local concerns, but for some reason I don’t believe that God’s orders to go to ‘Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and the ends of the earth,’ while progressional, is successional.
Tim: Also, often in my own life, my question is not “am I going to obey God,” but “is this really what God wants me to do?” Am I simply denying it’s God because I don’t want to do it? Or could I be legitimately uncertain whether it is something God actually wants me to do? I’m often paralyzed by uncertainty and don’t even know if I’m being disobedient.
lastly: we always encourage thoughtful commentaries, and Naomi Thorson did just that on her blog, which although i have deep reservations about a few of her comments, we believe it to be a very thought-provoking and sincere reaction to this chapel. here it is: http://simplyshalom.blogspot.com/2009/10/condoning-genocide.html
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Holy Spirit: An Oft Misunderstood Mystery
Tim:
Since it’s possible we have offended some with our critical comments, I would like to say that we sincerely appreciate, respect and admire our speakers, even if we are critical. We don’t mean to be insulting, though we realize it can come across that way. For that we apologize. Hopefully, in some ironic way, the fact that we are questioning reflects how serious we are about hearing God’s truth. Given our frequent cynicism, it is only fair that we acknowledge a message that hits us right where we need it.
Thus, I would like to congratulate Laurel on what I thought was an outstanding and much needed message. She spoke to us about the Holy Spirit. She said, and I agree, that the Spirit is probably the most difficult and misunderstood aspect of God for most people to grasp. This is certainly true in my own life, as everything about the Spirit seems kind of mysterious and uncertain. It’s not talked about enough. She touched on some things that I really appreciated, though I have a couple of questions.
First, she mentioned that many of us have lost touch with the fact that the Spirit is really alive and moving. I wholeheartedly agree, and have long pondered the sense I get in this part of the world that the Holy Spirit is only some sort of quasi-member of the Trinity. The whole concept of spirits is, I think, difficult for many people. She reminded us that he is equal with the other two parts of the Trinity, which I often subconsciously fail to think about.
Second, she mentioned John 14, which I have been mulling over recently, myself. Something about the Spirit in this passage just reaches out and grabs me. But who is this mysterious character who is supposed to guide, comfort, and counsel us? What exactly do we mean by “Spirit?” She touched on this, but I still failed to understand. I have never really been certain how to think of the very concept of “spirit.” Not physical, yet real and present. The harder I think the less I can wrap my mind around it. All I know is that it’s real. I really wish I understood better.
That brings me to my questions. Laurel described the Spirit as being “a person.” I’m not entirely clear on what she meant by “person.” I’m assuming she meant something along the lines of “a real, living entity, like any of us.” I guess I just leave still unsure how to think about the Spirit, not because I don’t have ways to describe him, but because so many of the concepts surrounding don’t easily fit together in my mental framework.
The other question I have concerns discernment. She mentioned a couple things that related to this. First, she said that the Spirit reveals the heart of God. I absolutely agree. Along with that, she mentioned that “with the Spirit, there is no scripture you can’t understand.” How, then, do we discern what is from the Spirit when two Christians, presumably both with the Spirit, understand the same scripture in opposite ways? Does that mean it hasn’t fully been revealed it to either of them? Does it mean that it has more than one possible interpretation? What are the implications of that? I think there are no certain answers to such questions, but they are important for us to ask.
She also said that many people ask how we can know He’s working in us. I often do, as well. We tend to sit around waiting for some “feeling” to come over us. But he is above our feelings. I agree, but for me, it can be hard to discern between the guidance of the Spirit and my own feelings. I really liked the last thing she mentioned: we can see him in lives and that through sharing our testimonies with one another, something I’m in favor of.
Thank you, Laurel, for speaking on something so few of us really understand, and for not shying away from the tough questions.
Peter:
After chapel I spoke to a friend about what he thought about chapel, and he mentioned that he was appreciative of the multiple ‘avenues’ of worship offered. Which I have to say I identified with. I am not a singing kind of person, but I am a listening type of person, and the strings and piano at the beginning of chapel was, for me, one of the best worship sessions that have been in chapel. That also caste a new light on the interpretive dancer they had on stage. I think interpretive dancing is weird, simply put. It makes me uncomfortable, and I don’t understand it. But I guess if I prefer to worship in listening to God’s beauty rather than singing, others can through watching… I just feel very uncomfortable with interpretive dance. It’s weird.
Chapel today was about the Holy Spirit, the final third of the trinity. Laurel mentioned, correctly I believe, that the Holy Spirit is the least-understood of the three parts of the trinity. It is the part I understand the least, but that’s in accordance with humans as well. It’s easy to understand somebody’s mind and person, but their spirit is hard to discern, and it’s easily veiled, and even easier to misinterpret. So too God’s spirit is difficult to understand. But I think Laurel brought up some good topics. Three in particular which stuck out to me: the manifestation of the spirit, the role of the spirit, and the effects of the spirit.
Probably the most appreciated point made was that of the manifestation of the spirit. She mentioned that the spirit is often misinterpreted as merely something that makes people go nuts and start talking in tongues, screaming and rolling around on the floor. She then went on to say that’s only one small way it, sorry, ‘he’ as she specifically made a point about, works in people. She said that when we have the spirit in us it shows. And hallelujah, amen, she made the point of the fruits of the spirit. As my friend mentioned after chapel, typically the fruits of the spirit are thought of as spiritual disciplines, things we strive for to become ‘better Christians,’ and he went on to say that it was refreshingly refreshing to view the fruits of the spirit as just that, the results of the spirit in somebody’s life.
A second thing mentioned was the nature of the spirit, or role of the spirit. Specifically she mentioned that the spirit is not a feeling, ‘he’ is not going to manipulate your emotions, but rather reveal truth. I don’t know whether or not that is the primary role of the spirit—revealing truth, but I have to say, I don’t believe God manipulates emotions, or changes feelings. I believe God is Love, take it or leave it.
Lastly, I again was frustrated at the blatant disregard for the good of this world. At the end of her talk, which was an excellent one, Laurel mentioned that when we get the Holy Spirit in our lives this world matters much less, that when dealing with the Spirit ‘he’ illuminates the power beyond ourselves which belittles our world. The Holy Spirit does nothing of the kind. If anything, the Spirit, and God make this world more significant than ever. I know she referenced pain and struggle frequently and how the Spirit relates to alleviating those, but pain and suffering aren’t what this world is about, and it’s frustrating for me to keep hearing that it is. The way I can explain it best is to let somebody else explain it:
“Ye can call it the Valley of the Shadow of Life. And yet to those who stay here it will have been Heaven from the first. And ye can call those sad streets in the town yonder the Valley of the Shadow of Death: but to those who remain there they will have been Hell even from the beginning.” (67)
This quotation is from CS Lewis’ book The Great Divorce. I would apply this passage to our world, in that those who are saved see heaven from the first; they see God’s good in this world. And to be honest I think Laurel, despite what she said at the end of her talk would agree with me. It seems obvious to me that Laurel has a great joy and love for this world and its inhabitants, as God’s creation. I just wish the pain and suffering wouldn’t always define our world. It’s merely the broken part of a good, God-breathed creation.
Since it’s possible we have offended some with our critical comments, I would like to say that we sincerely appreciate, respect and admire our speakers, even if we are critical. We don’t mean to be insulting, though we realize it can come across that way. For that we apologize. Hopefully, in some ironic way, the fact that we are questioning reflects how serious we are about hearing God’s truth. Given our frequent cynicism, it is only fair that we acknowledge a message that hits us right where we need it.
Thus, I would like to congratulate Laurel on what I thought was an outstanding and much needed message. She spoke to us about the Holy Spirit. She said, and I agree, that the Spirit is probably the most difficult and misunderstood aspect of God for most people to grasp. This is certainly true in my own life, as everything about the Spirit seems kind of mysterious and uncertain. It’s not talked about enough. She touched on some things that I really appreciated, though I have a couple of questions.
First, she mentioned that many of us have lost touch with the fact that the Spirit is really alive and moving. I wholeheartedly agree, and have long pondered the sense I get in this part of the world that the Holy Spirit is only some sort of quasi-member of the Trinity. The whole concept of spirits is, I think, difficult for many people. She reminded us that he is equal with the other two parts of the Trinity, which I often subconsciously fail to think about.
Second, she mentioned John 14, which I have been mulling over recently, myself. Something about the Spirit in this passage just reaches out and grabs me. But who is this mysterious character who is supposed to guide, comfort, and counsel us? What exactly do we mean by “Spirit?” She touched on this, but I still failed to understand. I have never really been certain how to think of the very concept of “spirit.” Not physical, yet real and present. The harder I think the less I can wrap my mind around it. All I know is that it’s real. I really wish I understood better.
That brings me to my questions. Laurel described the Spirit as being “a person.” I’m not entirely clear on what she meant by “person.” I’m assuming she meant something along the lines of “a real, living entity, like any of us.” I guess I just leave still unsure how to think about the Spirit, not because I don’t have ways to describe him, but because so many of the concepts surrounding don’t easily fit together in my mental framework.
The other question I have concerns discernment. She mentioned a couple things that related to this. First, she said that the Spirit reveals the heart of God. I absolutely agree. Along with that, she mentioned that “with the Spirit, there is no scripture you can’t understand.” How, then, do we discern what is from the Spirit when two Christians, presumably both with the Spirit, understand the same scripture in opposite ways? Does that mean it hasn’t fully been revealed it to either of them? Does it mean that it has more than one possible interpretation? What are the implications of that? I think there are no certain answers to such questions, but they are important for us to ask.
She also said that many people ask how we can know He’s working in us. I often do, as well. We tend to sit around waiting for some “feeling” to come over us. But he is above our feelings. I agree, but for me, it can be hard to discern between the guidance of the Spirit and my own feelings. I really liked the last thing she mentioned: we can see him in lives and that through sharing our testimonies with one another, something I’m in favor of.
Thank you, Laurel, for speaking on something so few of us really understand, and for not shying away from the tough questions.
Peter:
After chapel I spoke to a friend about what he thought about chapel, and he mentioned that he was appreciative of the multiple ‘avenues’ of worship offered. Which I have to say I identified with. I am not a singing kind of person, but I am a listening type of person, and the strings and piano at the beginning of chapel was, for me, one of the best worship sessions that have been in chapel. That also caste a new light on the interpretive dancer they had on stage. I think interpretive dancing is weird, simply put. It makes me uncomfortable, and I don’t understand it. But I guess if I prefer to worship in listening to God’s beauty rather than singing, others can through watching… I just feel very uncomfortable with interpretive dance. It’s weird.
Chapel today was about the Holy Spirit, the final third of the trinity. Laurel mentioned, correctly I believe, that the Holy Spirit is the least-understood of the three parts of the trinity. It is the part I understand the least, but that’s in accordance with humans as well. It’s easy to understand somebody’s mind and person, but their spirit is hard to discern, and it’s easily veiled, and even easier to misinterpret. So too God’s spirit is difficult to understand. But I think Laurel brought up some good topics. Three in particular which stuck out to me: the manifestation of the spirit, the role of the spirit, and the effects of the spirit.
Probably the most appreciated point made was that of the manifestation of the spirit. She mentioned that the spirit is often misinterpreted as merely something that makes people go nuts and start talking in tongues, screaming and rolling around on the floor. She then went on to say that’s only one small way it, sorry, ‘he’ as she specifically made a point about, works in people. She said that when we have the spirit in us it shows. And hallelujah, amen, she made the point of the fruits of the spirit. As my friend mentioned after chapel, typically the fruits of the spirit are thought of as spiritual disciplines, things we strive for to become ‘better Christians,’ and he went on to say that it was refreshingly refreshing to view the fruits of the spirit as just that, the results of the spirit in somebody’s life.
A second thing mentioned was the nature of the spirit, or role of the spirit. Specifically she mentioned that the spirit is not a feeling, ‘he’ is not going to manipulate your emotions, but rather reveal truth. I don’t know whether or not that is the primary role of the spirit—revealing truth, but I have to say, I don’t believe God manipulates emotions, or changes feelings. I believe God is Love, take it or leave it.
Lastly, I again was frustrated at the blatant disregard for the good of this world. At the end of her talk, which was an excellent one, Laurel mentioned that when we get the Holy Spirit in our lives this world matters much less, that when dealing with the Spirit ‘he’ illuminates the power beyond ourselves which belittles our world. The Holy Spirit does nothing of the kind. If anything, the Spirit, and God make this world more significant than ever. I know she referenced pain and struggle frequently and how the Spirit relates to alleviating those, but pain and suffering aren’t what this world is about, and it’s frustrating for me to keep hearing that it is. The way I can explain it best is to let somebody else explain it:
“Ye can call it the Valley of the Shadow of Life. And yet to those who stay here it will have been Heaven from the first. And ye can call those sad streets in the town yonder the Valley of the Shadow of Death: but to those who remain there they will have been Hell even from the beginning.” (67)
This quotation is from CS Lewis’ book The Great Divorce. I would apply this passage to our world, in that those who are saved see heaven from the first; they see God’s good in this world. And to be honest I think Laurel, despite what she said at the end of her talk would agree with me. It seems obvious to me that Laurel has a great joy and love for this world and its inhabitants, as God’s creation. I just wish the pain and suffering wouldn’t always define our world. It’s merely the broken part of a good, God-breathed creation.
Monday, September 28, 2009
The Son: Jesus and Social Justice...and a Hint of Social Gospel?
Today Tanden spoke and we had the opportunity to meet with him afterwards. Peter talked with him for a good while and Tim showed up for the tail end of it. It is our hope that this will lead to further discussion on these important questions and issues. We also spoke about this blog, and we hope it will become a tool for constructive and respectful dialog. If you get a chance to read this, Tanden, we intend any apparent criticisms not as condemnations, but as respectful reflections of our questions and concerns as we wrestle with these matters.
We apologize for the extra length, but we feel it’s slightly justified since we got to talk in person to Tanden, so it goes a little beyond simply chapel. This entry will be in three parts: Peter’s response to chapel before talking to Tanden, Peter’s response to the conversation with Tanden, and Tim’s response to both (mostly chapel) after talking to Tanden.
Peter on Chapel:
Tanden spoke today, supposedly, on the Son. That is, it was supposed to be about the son third of the trinity, which he proceeded not to do. Which is fine, I just get tired of people not talking about what they are supposedly talking about. He set up his talk by framing a ‘central question’ which was “what does Jesus say to those whose backs are against the [proverbial] wall?” He proceeded to then answer the question ‘what does Jesus say to those whose backs are not against the said proverbial wall?’ He kept reiterating the phrase: “you have to enter into a life of pain.” The general message seemingly was that since Jesus decided to come to earth as an underprivileged person, so too should we acknowledge that. Jesus brings a Christianity of pain was one of the last phrases he uttered.
While this was all well and good, ok so not wholly coherent as far as I could tell, it did raise three questions for me: what did what seemed like the social gospel have to do with the trinity, specifically the Son? What in the world did he mean when he said “you must enter into a life of pain and acknowledge who you really are.”? And lastly, what exactly is it that Jesus says to those with their backs against the proverbial wall?
Peter on the Conversation:
Well, I actually was stumped by these and other minor questions floating around in my head, so I went up after chapel and asked to speak with this Tanden person. We had a real heart-to-heart, and I got to pick his mind for a while. I hope I didn’t come across as an inquisitor of sorts, but I may have asked a lot of questions. Like a lot. So I asked how this talk had anything to do with the trinity. His answer was interesting. He said that he viewed Jesus as the embodiment of the trinity on earth. Which seemed to fall, in my mind at least, into one of the three ‘heretical’ views of the trinity Ross outlined at the start of this whole thing. Of course, I agree with Tanden’s view just as much as I did with Ross’s. I hold to my original thoughts on the matter.
Regardless, Tanden explained what he didn’t in chapel, which was that Jesus reached out to and indeed was a member of the uderprivilaged class, which he equated with the oppressed class, which he also seemed to equate with those whose backs are against the wall, three similar yet nuanced statements which weren’t clearly defined. But since Jesus identified as such a person we too should realize that that is how God/the trinity would emphasize life: as painful. Tanden spent a lot of time emphasizing the pain in the world, which I think was great, because let’s face it, pain is a reality.
But his driving point was that ‘we,’ that is the perceived uppermiddleclasswhitefolk, have a ‘gospel of privilege’ which is disconnected from the pain in this world, both internal and external to ‘ourselves.’ He said that we should ‘enter into pain’ the way Jesus did by entering the world as a peon. Trying to pin down this guy is difficult though. Question after clarifying question simply seemed to bring more questions. Maybe it’s just a love of questions on my part, but the main point of difference I seemed to be getting the feeling of, although I may just have misinterpreted his words (not unheard of by me), was that Tanden seemed intent on pain, on the epic struggle of the oppressed, and all that. I like that in somebody; to serve and love ‘the least of these’ is in my opinion too often overlooked.
But where I feel like we differ is that I cannot fit into his worldview. He believes the gospel to be a message of God reconciling the oppressed to ‘shalom’, whereas I view the gospel as a message of love with reconciliation merely the consequence and only one aspect of said love. He seemed all too focused on the oppressed versus the oppressors, on the pain in this life. To be sure, there are far too many good examples in history of this, as my compatriot Tim said during our conversation. However I cannot limit my focus to such a small portion of God’s creation, or such a small portion of our lives. He made the point that we all have pain, and ‘our’ gospel doesn’t deal with said pain. As true as that may seem, the gospel has so much more than a message to the pained. It has a universal message, a message of love which begets the reconciliation, not of reconciliation that begets love. So I think Tanden was right on, we do need to realize this world has the broken, to mention just briefly to remember in your prayers the half a million flood victims in the Philippines, and such pain needs not only be acknowledged, but also addressed; but I cannot accept a picture of reality so limited, so focused as to lose sight of the rest of what God does and says.
Tim:
Today was a challenge for me. I have struggled with some of our speaker’s messages in the past. However, I tried to have an open mind and a good attitude. I will readily admit that once I feel a certain way, I tend to jump on anything that supports my feelings (I’m guessing most people, if they’re honest with themselves, would admit the same thing). In this case, it isn’t because I think it is wrong. It is precisely because I agree with his heart so profoundly. It is hard to see a message I care so deeply about come across in a way that is easily misunderstood.
He was talking about the Son, as this is a series about the Trinity. I will confess, though (and I know this was not the intent), that it came across to me more like it was using the Son to discuss social justice. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m totally in favor of social justice, and I think the Son is as well. My heart aches for those less fortunate and the plight of the poor and needy stirs up a passion in my soul. Many times it has brought me to tears. I know the same is true of our speaker. However, in this case I felt that those of us who grew up in middle-class Christianity were being characterized as “hotel-dwellers” – people are people who live their lives blissfully unaware and unconcerned about the troubles that plague those who are lower in the power structure than we are.
He was suggesting today that we think about how Jesus would react to those with their backs against the wall. I have no problem with this and I think it is something many people forget about. But like I said above, it came across to me as if to say that no one there had given the less fortunate a second thought. To anyone who doesn’t know me, I am simply a white, middle-class face in a sea of such people. I’ll admit there have been aspects of “hotel-dwelling” in my life. But that’s not all I am, nor is it all I care about. The more I build relationships, the more I find that all my neighbors are in a place a lot like mine. I struggle with anyone around me being thought of as “hotel-dwellers,” because I know that even though I may look like one and often act like one, that is not where my heart is. How then can I assume that those around me are in a different place than I am?
I grew up in the midst of poverty, too. I’ve known people who have been stabbed in drunken knife fights. I know people who have been the victims of domestic abuse. I have close friends who have experienced suicides in their families. I know people who have grown up with broken homes, with only one parent. I know people who have lost their jobs, or who have been depressed. When my own brother was in high school his best friend died in his arms (Sorry, Steve, if I’m not allowed to share that). As I write, the Philippines, my other “home,” is suffering massively as a city of over 15 million finds itself under five feet of water. Almost half a million people have lost their homes, and most of those may never recover. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33053600/ns/weather if you’re curious).
I don’t say these things to suggest that I have lived a difficult life and deserve sympathy. I have lived a tremendously blessed life for which I will never be as grateful as I should. I say these things simply to say that I am familiar with suffering, despite my socio-political position. Pain breaks my heart, too. And I don’t know a single person who has lived a life free of suffering, no matter where we are in the political and social structures. We at Bethel often ignore suffering around us. But ironically, we too, are the suffering. And the members of our community, too, need God’s love and encouragement.
I don’t disagree with the heart of this message. On the contrary, this is a passion in my own heart. I agree with the call to embrace those who are suffering. I agree that Jesus calls us to do this, and this type of love is the heart of the Christian message. We, as the church, are not called to condemn but to be a faithful blessing to the nations of the world. Jesus was not primarily a social reformer. Like Peter said, I believe he is much, much more than that, though social justice is an inextricable part of the Kingdom. He was a faithful and obedient servant of his Father. All else is contingent on this. As he said:
“'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" – Matthew 22:37-40.
So no matter our class, gender, race, or experience, I suggest we look at those around us who have also fallen short. Let’s join with each other. Together as God’s children, let’s be faithful to His commands to bless the nations; to love our neighbors; and act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with Him. Through our faithfulness in this, God’s Kingdom – with its justice, love, and mercy - will take its place in the world.
“I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these…” – John 14:12
Friday, September 25, 2009
The Governor's Spouse
First of all, can we just say that this whole pillow fight thing that replaced cram the car for homecoming this year was just dumb? Because it was. Moving along…
Peter:
I got to see the governor! Governor Pawlenty was at The most intriguing thing she said was that she made a statement ‘it’s about our life of service’ in reference to a quotation from Rick Warren she had minutes prior spoken: ‘it’s not about us.’ I guess my question would be how in the world does that make sense? First of all ‘it’ is wholly ambiguous. What’s not about us, and how is ‘it’ about our life of service, and how does that fit into the context of her talk about our trust and walk with God? Now I’ve heard it said, and it makes fairly plain sense the statement: ‘it’s not about us, it’s about God.’ But never had I heard the claim that ‘it’s not about us; it’s about our life of service.’ Now to be fair, Rick Warren goes on to say it’s about God using us for His purposes, so in the sense that our life of service is God using us for His purposes, it is actually about our life of service. Maybe I just answered my own question, maybe not. But if anybody can tell me what the proverbial ‘it’ is, and why ‘it’ is always about something, and maybe even if I’m conceited by thinking that ‘it’ could very well be about us. I mean, we were created by an almighty God, and we are infinitely less than said God, but did God create me so that He could feel loved or so that I could feel loved? Or none of the above. In fact, God’s creation has always kind of stumped me. Why? And don’t give me the glory of God crap, I want a reason for the fact that six and a half billion of us are wandering this little planet of ours. Were we created to judge the angels? Were we created because God is a creative God and we just happened to be the fallout of His creativeness? Were we created for the advancement God’s kingdom, created as soldiers for His army? Are we created to care for the creation, in which case what’s the point of creation? It’s long been an intriguing question for me.
Tim:
I came within three feet of Governor Pawlenty today. It was awesome because first of all, he’s awesome and second, his name is Tim. He was here because his wife spoke. She spoke last year and was great. She is a Bethel
Anyway, I was very excited to hear Mary Pawlenty. Like Peter said, it was somewhat disappointing that chapel was basically over by the time she talked. It makes sense, because it was a chapel honoring her as alumnus of the year, not as a guest speaker. I didn’t realize that going in, but it was still good to hear her. She told us about her path to where she is, saying essentially that she goes through life with “open hands.” I liked hearing that, even though I’ve heard it before. Somehow, when she says it, I hear it more. Maybe because she readily acknowledged that she had no idea what she was doing when she was my age, and neither do I.
Regarding what “it” is, I figured it was just life. Our lives aren’t about us. I think that’s what she was trying to say. Maybe our reason for existence is to somehow be an embodiment of God’s love. Maybe that’s all and maybe that’s enough. I don’t know if that’s orthodox or not, but I can’t imagine it’s a too terrible a thought.
I don’t really have that much to say about today, otherwise. My favorite part of the whole chapel was when she told us that when her husband told her he was considering running for governor, she laughed at him. She was sure he’d lose and they’d get to return to regular life. Now, he’s been the governor for like seven years. And he’s the best ever. After chapel, I stood and waited for them to walk out so that I could say I saw him in person. He passed within in a couple feet of me. This is my new claim to fame.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Son: Episode 1
I (Tim) am the only one posting today. Peter has lots of classes and has to work the overnight shift tonight so he is using the in-between times to sleep rather than blog. He apologizes for his absence, and he will be back on Friday. He would like to say that he felt chapel was decent, and there were two things he wanted to say about it: that he was “excited for Christmas because she mentioned the manger, and excited she asked us to be thankful rather than asking God for something in the prayer.” I agree with him wholeheartedly regarding both these comments.
Unfortunately, I would have to say that those two things were the highlights today. Having already discussed the Father in the series on the Trinity, today we moved on to the Son. We were regaled with stories of the greatness of the previous messages about the Trinity – a greatness which, except for one case, eluded me. I tried to keep my mind and heart open for what we were to hear, but it didn’t work too well. Some of this had to do with the overall chapel experience, and my apologies, but I have to rant for a moment.
I realize some people are more expressive than I am. But it’s possible to be disruptively expressive in public worship. I had the misfortune of sitting in front of a groaner today. Now, I appreciate that this individual was probably really into the prayer. And I’m glad she was. I don’t mind an “Amen” here and there; in fact I kind of enjoy it. However, it is not only distracting, but makes me very uncomfortable to hear “mmm! yes!” accompanied by groans, moans, and grunts after every sentence of a prayer. It is just really hard for me to focus on God when behind me, I hear a succession of passionate moans that can sound like something that belongs elsewhere. Now I don’t mean to suggest that people shouldn’t throw themselves fully into prayer. But if you’re a groaner, I beg of you, please, please, please, remember that you are not alone in your room and be considerate of those around you. Sometimes it is not conducive to worship for the rest of us. I think this experience soured my mood because afterwards, I felt especially cynical about the whole of chapel. I honestly do appreciate the attempt that was made, but I just didn’t think it was tremendously useful.
Her two main points were that Jesus left heaven for us and that Jesus is always with us. She talked about the time when it really struck her that Jesus had left the glory of heaven for us. She was reading John 17 and for the first time, that knowledge went from her head to her heart. Only when we really know with our hearts what he gave up will we really get Jesus. The second point was that Jesus has been tempted and tried just like us, but he was obedient. He is always with us and, like he was dependent on God and obedient, we need to be as well.
I have no objection to these points, but I have heard these things hundreds of times. She knows that, and even brought it up. But knowing it in your head doesn’t do much. So, she said, “let’s get it from our heads to our hearts.” Yes, that’s what needs to happen, but I don’t think that telling us to do so is really going to work. I have had those moments where something really strikes you and suddenly something that you’ve known or believed for many years is real to you. But it never happened because I sat in the pew and willed it to happen with all my might. I may as well sit there trying to grow wings and fly away. It’s just not something that happens on command. At least for me, it tends to happen when I experience it or when I hear some sort of moving experience of it that someone else had. That’s why I like personal stories and such in sermons – something that was lacking today.
Again, maybe I’m hard-hearted, but I feel like this could have been a great message if some actual effort had been made to engage our hearts. But instead, it felt more like an attempt to pound the same old things into our heads, hoping that if we pound hard enough, something will give way and they will fall down to our hearts. I’m just not convinced it works that way.
The good news is that Mary Pawlenty is speaking on Friday. She came last year and was excellent. I can’t wait!
Unfortunately, I would have to say that those two things were the highlights today. Having already discussed the Father in the series on the Trinity, today we moved on to the Son. We were regaled with stories of the greatness of the previous messages about the Trinity – a greatness which, except for one case, eluded me. I tried to keep my mind and heart open for what we were to hear, but it didn’t work too well. Some of this had to do with the overall chapel experience, and my apologies, but I have to rant for a moment.
I realize some people are more expressive than I am. But it’s possible to be disruptively expressive in public worship. I had the misfortune of sitting in front of a groaner today. Now, I appreciate that this individual was probably really into the prayer. And I’m glad she was. I don’t mind an “Amen” here and there; in fact I kind of enjoy it. However, it is not only distracting, but makes me very uncomfortable to hear “mmm! yes!” accompanied by groans, moans, and grunts after every sentence of a prayer. It is just really hard for me to focus on God when behind me, I hear a succession of passionate moans that can sound like something that belongs elsewhere. Now I don’t mean to suggest that people shouldn’t throw themselves fully into prayer. But if you’re a groaner, I beg of you, please, please, please, remember that you are not alone in your room and be considerate of those around you. Sometimes it is not conducive to worship for the rest of us. I think this experience soured my mood because afterwards, I felt especially cynical about the whole of chapel. I honestly do appreciate the attempt that was made, but I just didn’t think it was tremendously useful.
Her two main points were that Jesus left heaven for us and that Jesus is always with us. She talked about the time when it really struck her that Jesus had left the glory of heaven for us. She was reading John 17 and for the first time, that knowledge went from her head to her heart. Only when we really know with our hearts what he gave up will we really get Jesus. The second point was that Jesus has been tempted and tried just like us, but he was obedient. He is always with us and, like he was dependent on God and obedient, we need to be as well.
I have no objection to these points, but I have heard these things hundreds of times. She knows that, and even brought it up. But knowing it in your head doesn’t do much. So, she said, “let’s get it from our heads to our hearts.” Yes, that’s what needs to happen, but I don’t think that telling us to do so is really going to work. I have had those moments where something really strikes you and suddenly something that you’ve known or believed for many years is real to you. But it never happened because I sat in the pew and willed it to happen with all my might. I may as well sit there trying to grow wings and fly away. It’s just not something that happens on command. At least for me, it tends to happen when I experience it or when I hear some sort of moving experience of it that someone else had. That’s why I like personal stories and such in sermons – something that was lacking today.
Again, maybe I’m hard-hearted, but I feel like this could have been a great message if some actual effort had been made to engage our hearts. But instead, it felt more like an attempt to pound the same old things into our heads, hoping that if we pound hard enough, something will give way and they will fall down to our hearts. I’m just not convinced it works that way.
The good news is that Mary Pawlenty is speaking on Friday. She came last year and was excellent. I can’t wait!
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
4,000 Roses and Enough Love to Go Around
We apologize for the lateness. And for there probably being more typos than normal. We got a little lazy on the editing... But here it is! :)
Peter:
There was a guest speaker today, who was, I think, perhaps the best speaker to date for chapel. I won’t spend much time on this blog, mostly because she had a simple and straightforward message, one heard before, but still meaningful: God’s gift was meant to be given away. She stated that God’s love was unfathomable and that it is meant for us to give away. You could reference Matthew 5:15, you don’t light a lamp and hide it under a bowl. I’m shy, and I don’t like talking to people I don’t know, but if you let God work in your life, situations for you to display God’s love to your fellow man will present themselves. There are two specific ways which God has blessed me with being a witness to others.
First, He has blessed my life as a whole. Just living in God’s love is visible to others, and I live with no regrets. I leave nothing on the table, and I live as much for others as I do for myself. I’m not perfect in this respect, but I try, and God uses what he can. Multiple times in my life, and as much credit should be heaved upon my parents as possible, but multiple times either I or my parents have been approached asking why it is that I or my siblings are different. In a Japanese culture lacking God’s witnesses those of us who live for Him do stand out, and it is a way to spread the gospel. As the saying goes: ‘preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words.’ Lest one uses this as a cop-out for actually talking about God’s love, you should know that when you live for God it usually involves communicating directly with others at some point.
God has, especially in recent years, blessed me with opportunities for this as well. There’s the story of when I was in Lithuania and I was sitting at a table in a bar, and I had a cross necklace on. A man came up to me, and because he knew I was an American, and because I was wearing a cross he assumed (correctly) that I was Christian. He then started talking about the various experiences he’d had with Christianity either through going to a catholic church or through reading part of the Bible. We went outside and had a great ten minute conversation where I told him why I believed why I did, and why he saw what he saw in the church and in the Bible. Another time, also in Lithuania I got into an hours long conversation with a confessing agnostic about life, the universe, and everything, really. It started out merely as me editing a paper, and from there it exploded into a conversation of philosophical, ontological, theological, and any other –icals you can think of topics. It was there that I was also able to share the reasons for my beliefs, and I don’t know how God’s used that conversation in particular, but it’s this and many other instances like it which convince me that yes, God indeed does intend for His message to be communicated in Jerusalem, Judea, in all of Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. Knowing this is what my parents do for a living makes me that much more proud and blessed to have them as my parents, and I thank God for them, for His Word, and for His boundless love.
Tim:
I walked into chapel today wondering who was going to speak. I still am not really sure who the speaker was, but she was possibly the coolest ever! Her name was Lisa, and I didn’t catch her last name. I think she was somehow connected to the Urbana missions conference. Before I talk about that, though, I want to say something about the music and some observations I made during the worship.
I am probably the least musical person in the history of the world. I cannot sing, I am essentially tone deaf, and I can’t even clap to a beat. Thus, in my years at Bethel, I have proven incapable of learning new songs. Apparently the only songs I can remember are the ones I grew up singing. So, when we sing songs I know, I get excited. Hence, I was absolutely thrilled when we sang “Be Thou My Vision.” I don’t know if it’s because I grew up singing hymns in church and it brings me back to the old days, but for some reason, I just love them. They’re great and there’s something about them that seems so profound. Anyway, this got me really excited, and things were only to get better.
The speaker was phenomenal. I will confess that my opinion is probably rooted more in my excitement about the speaker herself than over what she said. I think she could have said almost anything and I would have loved it, though. Why? Well, after she uttered her first sentence or two, I thought, “wow, she sounds like she could be Filipino!” And a few minutes later she revealed that, in fact, she was. I don’t know what it is about hearing Filipinos speak, whether in English or their own languages, but somehow it calms and excites me simultaneously. It just makes everything feel right. I guess the sounds of childhood can do that. So, I slipped into my happy place and soaked it all in. Not only did she have good things to say, but she was funny and engaging.
She told the story of how her son purchased, I think it was, 4,715 roses for his girlfriend when he proposed – one for each day he’d known her. She thought her son was crazy and wondered how much this cost him. But she didn’t ask him because she knew he was in love – “crazy love,” she called it. People do crazy things when they’re in love and they just have to share it. It doesn’t matter how much it cost because he was expressing something more important.
She brought up the story of the woman who washed Jesus’ feet in perfume. This, I thought, was quite refreshing. I feel like (and I realize that this is not the intended message) a lot of what we hear at Bethel often echoes what the disciples said when they condemned the woman, suggesting that her money would have been better used to help the poor. I have felt like I’m being told that I don’t love Jesus if I don’t devote all my time and resources to helping the poor. I’m not trying to say that the poor don’t matter, I’m just saying it was nice to be reminded that Jesus values other expressions of love, too.
Anyway, she essentially called us to spread the gospel – God’s version “crazy love” – with the world. Just like it seems a little crazy (yet awesome) that her son would by 4,000 flowers, it seems crazy that Jesus would give up his rights as God and die for us. We, in turn, are meant to show his love to our neighbors, no matter who or where they are. It was really a simple message, but refreshing. I really enjoyed it. She seems like someone who has embraced God’s love. It emanates from her and this whole chapel inspired me to strive for the same thing. It was just a spectacular experience. Another excellent chapel.
By the way, does anyone else want to go to Urbana?
Peter:
There was a guest speaker today, who was, I think, perhaps the best speaker to date for chapel. I won’t spend much time on this blog, mostly because she had a simple and straightforward message, one heard before, but still meaningful: God’s gift was meant to be given away. She stated that God’s love was unfathomable and that it is meant for us to give away. You could reference Matthew 5:15, you don’t light a lamp and hide it under a bowl. I’m shy, and I don’t like talking to people I don’t know, but if you let God work in your life, situations for you to display God’s love to your fellow man will present themselves. There are two specific ways which God has blessed me with being a witness to others.
First, He has blessed my life as a whole. Just living in God’s love is visible to others, and I live with no regrets. I leave nothing on the table, and I live as much for others as I do for myself. I’m not perfect in this respect, but I try, and God uses what he can. Multiple times in my life, and as much credit should be heaved upon my parents as possible, but multiple times either I or my parents have been approached asking why it is that I or my siblings are different. In a Japanese culture lacking God’s witnesses those of us who live for Him do stand out, and it is a way to spread the gospel. As the saying goes: ‘preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words.’ Lest one uses this as a cop-out for actually talking about God’s love, you should know that when you live for God it usually involves communicating directly with others at some point.
God has, especially in recent years, blessed me with opportunities for this as well. There’s the story of when I was in Lithuania and I was sitting at a table in a bar, and I had a cross necklace on. A man came up to me, and because he knew I was an American, and because I was wearing a cross he assumed (correctly) that I was Christian. He then started talking about the various experiences he’d had with Christianity either through going to a catholic church or through reading part of the Bible. We went outside and had a great ten minute conversation where I told him why I believed why I did, and why he saw what he saw in the church and in the Bible. Another time, also in Lithuania I got into an hours long conversation with a confessing agnostic about life, the universe, and everything, really. It started out merely as me editing a paper, and from there it exploded into a conversation of philosophical, ontological, theological, and any other –icals you can think of topics. It was there that I was also able to share the reasons for my beliefs, and I don’t know how God’s used that conversation in particular, but it’s this and many other instances like it which convince me that yes, God indeed does intend for His message to be communicated in Jerusalem, Judea, in all of Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. Knowing this is what my parents do for a living makes me that much more proud and blessed to have them as my parents, and I thank God for them, for His Word, and for His boundless love.
Tim:
I walked into chapel today wondering who was going to speak. I still am not really sure who the speaker was, but she was possibly the coolest ever! Her name was Lisa, and I didn’t catch her last name. I think she was somehow connected to the Urbana missions conference. Before I talk about that, though, I want to say something about the music and some observations I made during the worship.
I am probably the least musical person in the history of the world. I cannot sing, I am essentially tone deaf, and I can’t even clap to a beat. Thus, in my years at Bethel, I have proven incapable of learning new songs. Apparently the only songs I can remember are the ones I grew up singing. So, when we sing songs I know, I get excited. Hence, I was absolutely thrilled when we sang “Be Thou My Vision.” I don’t know if it’s because I grew up singing hymns in church and it brings me back to the old days, but for some reason, I just love them. They’re great and there’s something about them that seems so profound. Anyway, this got me really excited, and things were only to get better.
The speaker was phenomenal. I will confess that my opinion is probably rooted more in my excitement about the speaker herself than over what she said. I think she could have said almost anything and I would have loved it, though. Why? Well, after she uttered her first sentence or two, I thought, “wow, she sounds like she could be Filipino!” And a few minutes later she revealed that, in fact, she was. I don’t know what it is about hearing Filipinos speak, whether in English or their own languages, but somehow it calms and excites me simultaneously. It just makes everything feel right. I guess the sounds of childhood can do that. So, I slipped into my happy place and soaked it all in. Not only did she have good things to say, but she was funny and engaging.
She told the story of how her son purchased, I think it was, 4,715 roses for his girlfriend when he proposed – one for each day he’d known her. She thought her son was crazy and wondered how much this cost him. But she didn’t ask him because she knew he was in love – “crazy love,” she called it. People do crazy things when they’re in love and they just have to share it. It doesn’t matter how much it cost because he was expressing something more important.
She brought up the story of the woman who washed Jesus’ feet in perfume. This, I thought, was quite refreshing. I feel like (and I realize that this is not the intended message) a lot of what we hear at Bethel often echoes what the disciples said when they condemned the woman, suggesting that her money would have been better used to help the poor. I have felt like I’m being told that I don’t love Jesus if I don’t devote all my time and resources to helping the poor. I’m not trying to say that the poor don’t matter, I’m just saying it was nice to be reminded that Jesus values other expressions of love, too.
Anyway, she essentially called us to spread the gospel – God’s version “crazy love” – with the world. Just like it seems a little crazy (yet awesome) that her son would by 4,000 flowers, it seems crazy that Jesus would give up his rights as God and die for us. We, in turn, are meant to show his love to our neighbors, no matter who or where they are. It was really a simple message, but refreshing. I really enjoyed it. She seems like someone who has embraced God’s love. It emanates from her and this whole chapel inspired me to strive for the same thing. It was just a spectacular experience. Another excellent chapel.
By the way, does anyone else want to go to Urbana?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)