Category Archives: faith

Economics, Nationalism, and Justice

Posted on by

Glenn Beck of FoxNews and Jim Wallis of Sojourners have been in a battle of words of late. This is a recent post from Sojourners responding to another rant by Best, “We Won’t Back Down from Beck.”

The controversy has even made the Daily Show and the Cobert Report. Glenn Beck, on his FoxNews program and his syndicated radio show, over the last several months has taken to trash talk about any religious institution or leader that advocates for “social justice.”  He recommended that anyone who attends a church that talks about social justice needs to leave that church right away.  Of course, even his church (he is Mormon) has publicly stated that Beck does not reflect the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints position on justice.  Yet, he continues on.

All economic systems in this world come from theories of Man.  They all look good on paper, but on the group, well, not so good.  They all fail at one point or another.  When Christians decide that God sanctions one or another of these Systems of Man and demand that all others are therefore ungodly or evil, we get ourselves into all kinds of trouble. Wars, rumors of wars, greed, hording, violence, retribution, ad nauseum, result, despite that each of the Systems during certain periods of time and under certain conditions might actually be the best System to benefit the most people. We tend to attribute to God what fallible people create, and that never ends well.

So, when a Christian-Liberationists demand Socialism or Prosperity-Gospel people demand a form of Laisse-faire Capitalism (and I don’t think Wallis or Beck go to either of these extremes), we are off track.  When someone like Beck demonizes religious institutions and leaders who advocate for justice, he is off track.

What does God require of us, really?  Micah 6:8 gives us a clue:

He has showed you, O man, what is good.
       And what does the LORD require of you?
       To act justly and to love mercy
       and to walk humbly with your God.

I think somewhere in there is a call for Christians to be concerned about justice issues, but that does not mean that we equate an economic or social system devised by Man with God’s will.  The approach we take being in the Kingdom of God is different.  What does Jesus call us to?  Jesus’ call goes something like this (Matthew 22:36-40):

Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: ” ‘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.”

We can believe in Socialism or Capitalism, we can be a liberal or conservative – I don’t care what.  What I care about is whether I and all of us who claim Christ love God, love our neighbor (even our enemy), do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God.

On Social Media!

Posted on by

On Social Media. This is the reality, where are we as the Church in the mix? Do we understand (I mean honesty, really understand) the fundamental shift that is happening and the right and good role the Church can play in both the digital and tactile worlds? For the Cure of Souls? For peace? For an alternative?  How can we be the imago Dei among all of this?

Song of Songs

Posted on by

In my Carroll Gardens Home Group, we are reading through the Song of Songs attributed to King Solomon, one of the great rulers of ancient days.  Solomon was known to have loads of wives and concubines during his reign as King of the united kingdom of Israel.  Solomon, full of wisdom and its seems virility, had a profound effect on the Jewish nation then and for us, today – Christian or Jew.

The Church (as well as the Rabbis) tend to read the Song of Songs in an allegorical sense.  The passionate descriptions of love and devotion are said to represent God’s love (the lover) and God’s chosen people, Israel (the beloved), or in the Christian interpretation of Christ (the lover) and the Church (the beloved).  Or, perhaps, the poetry of this book truly does describe the abandonment two people can find in passionate love for one another – glorious in its reality.  We truly don’t know why the early Jewish religious leaders declared this book to be a part of the canon of Holy Scripture, but regardless of why or whether it should be allegorically or literally understood, it presents to us a wonderful depiction of love.

If we read through the writings of the ancient Christian religious or mystics, we see in their writings vivid and passionate language when they refer to their experience with and love for God.  In some of the writings, these depictions seem almost erotic in nature. The ecstatic feeling of love and fulfillment and comfort when enveloped in God’s love is wonderful.  I can see why such love language is used to describe it.

Here is a quote from the Interpreter’s Bible commentary on the Song of Songs

“Some importance, in other words, attaches to the fact that the Song of Songs has enjoyed a virtually uncontested place among the books of the Bible.  This does not mean that we are necessarily bound to the traditional allegorical method of interpretation, but it does lay upon us the responsibility of discovering what the biblical view of love is, its content and the language in which it is expressed. We may also discover, incidentally, that the biblical view of love gives a deeper meaning to the Song of Songs even when it is taken to be no more than the passionate, sensual love associated with physical attraction – that the Bible here, as in other ways, redeems and baptizes what otherwise is vulgar, common, and prurient.” (Vol.5, p. 110)

Millennial Generation (that’s ‘Y’ to you)

Posted on by

Here is a pertinent paragraph from the Wikipedia entry for “Millennial Generation.”  This observation/assertion is that the Millennial’s generational thinking and attitude and ascetics that run quite counter to the whole counterculture and anti-establishment nature of the Baby Boomers. 

For the Church, this means that those who are still convinced that to save the Church is to get rid of everything that was (standard theology, doctrine, traditional architecture or music or language or liturgies and on and on) are now acting not for the future welfare of the Church, but for the perpetuation of their generational ideology.  My experience with younger people suggests that even things like “inclusive language” is passe – particularly among the women.   When we think about how to form or re-form the emphases or methodologies of the Church for future generations, we must do our best to truly understand emerging generations.  If not, we will once again “miss the boat.”  We’ve missed the boat so often… 

Here is the paragraph:

In some ways, the Millennials have become seen as the ultimate rejection
of the counterculture that began in the 1960s and
persisted in the subsequent decades through the 1990s.[62][63]
This is further documented in Strauss & Howe’s book titled Millennials
Rising: The Next Great Generation, which describes the Millennial
generation as “civic minded,” rejecting the attitudes of the Baby Boomers and Generation X.[64]
Kurt Andersen, the prize-winning contributor to Vanity Fair writes in his book Reset:
How This Crisis Can Restore Our Values and Renew America that many
among the Millennial Generation view the 2008 election of Barack
Obama as uniquely theirs and describes this generational consensus
building as being more healthy and useful than the counterculture
protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s, going as far to say that if
Millennials can “keep their sense of entitlement in check, they might
just turn out to be the next Greatest Generation.”[65]
However, due to the global
financial crisis of 2008-2009, at least one journalist has
expressed fears of permanently losing a substantial amount of Generation
Y’s earning potential.[66]

Christianity = Truth? Really?

Posted on by

Isn’t it true that Christians are supposed to seek truth?  That means that seeking truth
must be independent of what makes us feel good, or makes us feel secure,
or superior, or valued, or respected, or accepted, or included, or
anything else, frankly.  If we seek truth, truth must rule the day, else our lives are a lie.

This is your brain on iPad

Posted on by

H

Image representing iPhone as depicted in Crunc...

Image via CrunchBase

ere is an interesting article from the New York Times.  Entitled, Digital Devices Deprive Brain of Needed Downtime, the article describes findings concerning the affect of digital technology and its constant use on the brain, particularly on the brain’s ability to actually learn, to form permanent memories, to synthesis what has been inputted previously, and to be creative.  Devises like the Blackberry, iPhone, iPad – the entire digitial cornucopia – are used to fill up even small amounts of downtime. Our purpensity to not simple be is a real hindrance to our own well being, it seems.  We are coming to the point where we allow no downtime, no time to “clear our heads,” and we are robbing ourselves of simple rest. Perhaps we are even hindering our own ability to effectively learn. 

What does this do to feelings of tranquility, our ability to not be bored, or our ability to actually engage with people in ways that are deeper than relational “sound-bites”?

“Almost certainly, downtime lets the brain go over experiences it’s
had, solidify them and turn them into permanent long-term memories,”
said Loren Frank, assistant professor in the department of physiology at
the university, where he specializes in learning and memory. He said he
believed that when the brain was constantly stimulated, “you prevent
this learning process.”

HANNOVER, GERMANY - MARCH 02: A man, wearing ...

Image by Getty Images via @daylife


At the University of Michigan,
a study found that people learned significantly better after a walk in
nature than after a walk in a dense urban environment, suggesting that
processing a barrage of information leaves people fatigued.

I’ve often thought that a growing and now significant hindrance to our faith and relationship not only with God but with one another revolves around our inability to be still, quiet, alone with our own thoughts, and simply be with someone without the need to be entertained or occupied. 

A strategic triumph of the Enemy of our Faith is to so distract us that we no longer give time to sit quietly with God, to study the contemplate the Word of God, or meditate on what it all means for life and love.  We cannot know God without being still, but if we are so conditioned and culturally malformed to avoid those times of stillness and quiet, we will never know the depth of relationship that is possible with God.  We will not know the depth of relationship that is possible with one another, but rather we allow ourselves to be conditioned for the superficial and the temporary.

We in the Church will need to be intentional and determined to give ourselves to periods of downtime, quiet, and stillness.  We, as followers of the Christ, will need to be examples to a world that will grow weary of this form of life.  When people begin looking for an alternative, will they see examples of a way of life that doesn’t shun technology but also is able to singularly focus for a lengthy period of time on the person sitting across from us, a life that is content and at peace without distraction?  What will be the witness of the Church?  Will people see the imago of God and an image of life that is substantially different and compelling for a good alternative, or will be look just like everyone else? 

This will be a coming mission of the Church – to reintroduce to the human experience, in the U.S. at least, examples of real, tactile relationships, a peace that comes from within and not determined by outside circumstances or influences, creativity, and a whole list of other things.  This is a common proclivity to the human experience from time beginning – we do harm to ourselves.

The “E” word

Posted on by

This recent article from the Episcopal News Service has prompted me to think again about the “E” word – you know, “evangelism”.  The article is entitled, “Mobilizing for mission: Seminarians organize for young adult evangelism.”  I have a lot of respect for this group of Episcopal seminarians in their effort to engage in evangelism, but to what are we calling people?  Is there an enduring aspect to what we are calling these young adults?

When I ask myself that question, here is what I keep coming back to: The Church needs to reclaim one of its primary purposes – to be about the Cure of Souls.  That means we call people to God through Jesus Christ first and foremost.  But, why should anyone be compelled to heed such a call, particularly if they take an account of our lives as examples of what we are calling them to?  How is our witness?

Within certain circles of the Christian Church in the U.S., and I suppose everywhere, the “E” word is avoided with a passion or simply redefined to fit particular sensibilities.

Growing up in American-Evangelicalism/Pentecostalism, evangelism was supposed to be at the center of my experience of the Faith.  We believed that we and all Christians are charged by God to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.” We believed this because, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16). 

While I certainly upheld this call to us all to preach the gospel, the problem I had with all the evangelism stuff was the preferred and accepted method most often used by American-Evangelicals, particularly in my context, which was the college campus.  The method used was often refereed to as “Confrontational Evangelism”.  In a more crass and defamatory description, some people referred to it as “bible-thumping.”

I was uncomfortable with evangelism all together because this was all I knew.  This method to me seemed fake, contrived, and forced in a way that didn’t leave room for dealing with real and honest questions and doubts.  To me, it did not seem to respect there object of the effort.  Paul, as described in Acts 17, often said something like, “Come, let us reason together…”, but there was no real reasoning within confrontational evangelism.  It seemed overly superficial.  Yet, I personally knew people who came to be reconciled to God (“saved,” in good Evangelical verbiage) through this method – God works as God will work!  Who are we to get in the way of the Spirit because of our own likes and dislikes!

I was drawn to another concept of evangelism during those days – “Friendship Evangelism.”  This method seemed more natural and respectful.  We befriended people simply because we wanted to be friends, although added to the mix was our desire for the person to also be a friend of God.  The problem was the constant tension between being “in the world,” but not “of the world.” 

Being friends with a “worldling” sometimes seemed to ran counter to God’s demand that we, “come out from among them”. (2 Corinthians 6:17)  How could one just hang with a non-Christian and be okay with that when being with him/her may be a bad influence on one’s own struggle against sin and striving for holiness?  Besides, their eternal soul hung in the balance and it was up to us to do something about that.  Pressure!  Pressure that made real friendship nearly impossible.  That’s why these “friendships” rarely lasted.  When the object of our efforts didn’t get saved, we dumped her/him and moved on to another prospect.  This was our witness of “friendship” among many non-Christians.  Some kind of friendship, eh?

This was why I hated “evangelism.”

Within American Mainline Christianity, there took hold among some an idea that “evangelism” wasn’t so much converting people to Christianity, but doing things that helping the poor and down trodden and then hoping that those helped would like us.  I remember while in seminary a representative from our Church’s Foreign Missions office declared that we no longer try to convert people, because that is disrespectful of their culture and religion, but we simply help them be all that they can be.  To what are we calling people? 

Today, for much of the Mainline, the “E” word has been redefined. “Evangelism” is simply helping, and then perhaps someone might like to help us help other people.  Helping others is a very good thing, but is it that to which we are to call people?

I can’t get into this kind of “evangelism,” either.

Within the Imago Dei Society, we center on Formation and Witness.  The Imago Dei Initiative is the means for helping us to live lives that reflect God, that reflect the transformational nature of God’s work within us, and that reflect something compellingly different within the surrounding contexts of our lives that get people’s attention.  What we hope gets people’s attention is not due to marketing, gimmicks, or manipulation, but simply the way we live – “There is just something compellingly and delightfully different about these people!”  The difference, if seen, is due to our relationship with God first and foremost and the re-formation of heart and mind that results. 

In a society and culture that is increasingly similiar to  the pre-Constantinain environment, “evangelism” comes about because something about our lives and example attracts the attention of those seeking something other than the status-quo.  If we can be the “image of God” with integrity, with honest, and with humility in our everyday lives among the people we encounter regularly, we will be doing “evangelism.”  We will be a good witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We do “evangelism” whether we want to or not.  The question we have to answer is whether the image of God and the Christian life we portray is on target (as best it can be in success and failure) and whether we call people to be reconciled with God before anything else.  Do we?

We hope to call people to two things consistently – be reconciled to God and with one another.  Take up your relationship with God and discover how you are transformed to live “life to the full”. (John 10:10)  It isn’t easy, and that is why we need one another to keep on. 

 

Sharing the Faith, Splitting the Rent

Posted on by

An article in the Sunday New York Times on intentional-communities of faith in NYC.  This is my intent.

Sharing the Faith, Splitting the Rent

Justin Hilton, 21, arrived at the brownstone in Bedford-Stuyvesant on
July 1. Mr. Hilton works at a video store in Park Slope, and moved from
Crown Heights, where he shared an apartment with a friend. He now pays
$500 a month to be a part of Radical Living.

A child of missionaries to West Africa, he grew up in communal
situations, and he was seeking similar surroundings when he discovered
Radical Living.

“Living here in this community is not just like I have people my age or
into the same things as me,” he says. “It stretches you and makes you
hopefully more selfless, living for something more than just your own
comfort.”

He said that living where religion is as much a part of daily roommate
life as making sure there’s milk in the fridge, means the principles of
his faith are always in practice. “Church, when it’s once a week, you
can turn it off,” Mr. Hilton said.

Why it’s cool to go to church

Posted on by

An interesting little piece in the Huffington Post – Why It’s Cook to Go to Church.  In addition, it is interesting that he went to Union and seems to have such an attitude toward the ancient and enduring Traditions – Catholic and Apostolic.  These are generally not the norm for Union students.  I wonder why he attended a seminary for his degree?  What initially brought him even that far?

“Then, in seminary, taking classes on monasticism and ancient
Christianity, I began to strongly feel the presence of God. I got
inspired to visit monasteries and very ancient churches, first in the
U.S., then researching and filming hermits in Egypt, then in Greece and
Eastern Europe, and finally in Russia. I met hermits and monks, and
they let me film their descriptions of the inner Christian life. They
took me to their monastery churches. My studies in Christian mysticism
and ancient texts grew deeper and deeper. I discovered a prayer, the
Jesus Prayer, or Kyrie Eleison — “Lord have mercy,” or “Lord Jesus
Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me.” (Some add “a sinner” at the
end.) I loved ancient church so much that I’m making a movie and
writing a book about them, coming early next year (Mysteries
of the Jesus Prayer is a not-for-profit feature film, the result of
my studies and renewed love-affair with Jesus Christ and church).”

Enhanced by Zemanta

In the “Inventive Age”

Posted on by

Here is the quote:

“I think there is something much bigger going on than finding a niche market and asking how should we position this product of the gospel so that those people will appreciate it, and will like it, and will accept it. We’re really asking a deeper question about who we are in a changing cultural environment when it comes to the way think, the values we hold, the tools that we use, and the aesthetics that are meaningful to us.” –Doug Pragitt (describing the concepts behind his new book, “Church in the Inventive Age“)  
Pagitt is the pastor of Salomon’s Porch Church.

This is the melee in which I desire to be and where the Imago Dei Society has a real place within the greater arena of Anglicanism. Well, actually, this whole way of considering and thinking has had a place within Anglicanism, but to understand how we continue to do this thing called Anglicanism (this Christianity) in emerging cultures and with emerging generations are the questions we need to continually ask!

I came across one of the ministries that has as its purpose (or its obsession) the condemning of the “Emergent” side of the Church as being heretical. I don’t know whether it is simply their inability to understand enculturation and that we are all raised within a cultural system that forms us in the ways we collectively think, the way we understand the world around us and our place it in, what we consider to be aesthetically pleasing or appropriate, and even what we consider to be moral and ethical.  I don’t know whether they are simply ignorant of disciplines like anthropology, sociology, etc., or what is really going on within them.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine Logos do not change, but we certainly do, our cultures certainly do, and what we consider to be self-evident truth certainly does.  So, groups like this, I suppose, either honestly not to understand, are being willfully ignorant (and as a former teacher, this is an astounding tragedy), or are intransigent in their beliefs – fundamentalists, in other words. 

What is this particular ministry, you might ask?  Apprising Ministries.  I don’t know anything about this, really, and perhaps much of what they do is really good, but with regard to Emergent stuff, they have a thorn in their craw!  So, make up your own mind.