East Mountain Street--less than a quarter-mile in my memory--was off limits to me and the Bowman brothers. We were white kids and East Mountain was an unpaved road through thick woods with a few small, tottering houses owned by black folks. My parents absolutely forbid me from walking on East Mountain for the back and forth to school. Walking three extra blocks around a big square of white-folks’ houses to avoid East Mountain seemed stupid to me, but my segregated culture was intensely held in the eyes and words of my parents’ rules. Eddie and his brother Marty dared me to join them that warm afternoon in May, 1965, and walk home on East Mountain. I was glad to have a reason to take the short route home, and I disobeyed my parents with a distinct thrill, sharp as a switchblade’s edge.
We were about halfway through the woods along the forbidden road, when I spotted the four black boys walking toward us. Immediately I knew by their size, they were older than the three of us. My companions had seen them, too; and they had seen us. Our jokes went silent.
Marty whispered forcefully, “Walk slow and look straight ahead.”
A dare accepted with smiling bravado among ten year-olds ten minutes prior became a weight around my neck pulling me into a whirlpool of trouble. In my mind’s eye, the next twenty-five steps would bring me face to face with four black hoodlums who would trip us, swing at us while swearing thickly and their canine teeth grew into razor points jutting out of their mouths. There would be no denying before my parents what wrong I had done as they patched my soon-to-be swollen face.
Before I could plan the lies I would use deflecting my parents’ anger, we two groups of boys were within only a few steps of one another. As if rehearsed, each opposing rank spread apart, eyes steeled forward, and all seven of us strained to not make eye contact. A last few steps placed us shoulder to shoulder and alternating colors in a line. For a split second, I was only inches from the boy on either side of me, who both seemed as tense as me in their forward, silent march.
A few steps enough away to make our whispers unclear to them, and we recounted among us what passing those black boys had felt like. We spoke of our fear; I remember it snarling in my chest and gulping my air away from me. We noted how the “enemy” had behaved--just like us—and they had done nothing to frighten or harm us as I expected.
In that short, disobedient walk down East Mountain Street, I had gone from feeling happily brave to risk it, through a despairing fear of having brought the most terrible moment imaginable upon myself, which then settled out as an odd place of wonder. Those black boys had been just boys, foreign to me perhaps, but neither mean nor dangerous as I had been warned. Something was wrong with my parents’ truth.
Ever had a moment in your life, when all your identified parameters of "truth" shifted?
.jpg)
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Christian Groups: Human and Supernatural
Is God's intent to foster a group of people prepared to enter into His intimacy for eternity or is it to establish a personal relationship with individuals?
Though you will hear both ideas in most groups, around here below the Mason-Dixon line there is a definite framework in which the words "Gospel of Jesus Christ" will be heard. That framework is that God's intent is salvation of the individual and intimacy with God for eternity is the reward for those who are so saved.
This theological framework is marketed (unfortunately not used metaphorically) by the tag line, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." So begins the gospel pitch to a me-oriented population. The gospel of Jesus Christ has become a passionate, evangelical hawking of salvation which warps the perspective by which God is known and the manner in which He is sought.
The irony is that all the words used are literally true and therefore continually draw new converts into the status-quo matrix of large organizations collecting vast sums of money, dollars often used for very real good works in addition to uses less noble. So why am I against this? Well, I'm not, if I can be allowed to split a hair or two.
Being against something and examining the same object under a critical-thinking lens are not necessarily the same thing. Nothing in my heart desires to see denominations deconstructed or ecumenically fused. The status-quo is there for a reason and supports many good people and good initiatives.
Yet, neither can I remain silent as I think I see something through which Christians might find themselves more deeply satisfied individually and, therefore, equipped more fully to seek the superlative spiritual life described in the Bible.
The solution to unfulfilling group-think, a condition which has the potential to become cumbersome and even rob adherents of spiritual life, is to seek a simple existence together as family in God and before Him.
Ephesians 4:14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming ; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together *by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
I contend that systematic theologies, named theologies, regional theologies, et cetera and et al, fail the simple truths in the Bible by masking them and reducing the clarity with which the Bible speaks. A group of believers who will purpose to build itself in love through submission to the spiritual headship of Jesus will learn to please God together. Individual needs will be met as the whole is prepared to spend eternity with God. It is more complicated than rocket science, perhaps, as it involves humans and not mathematical formulas; nonetheless, the Christian walk together in a group is uniquely sublime in its simplicity and profundity. Why do we bother over making it unnecessarily comlex?
Though you will hear both ideas in most groups, around here below the Mason-Dixon line there is a definite framework in which the words "Gospel of Jesus Christ" will be heard. That framework is that God's intent is salvation of the individual and intimacy with God for eternity is the reward for those who are so saved.
This theological framework is marketed (unfortunately not used metaphorically) by the tag line, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." So begins the gospel pitch to a me-oriented population. The gospel of Jesus Christ has become a passionate, evangelical hawking of salvation which warps the perspective by which God is known and the manner in which He is sought.
The irony is that all the words used are literally true and therefore continually draw new converts into the status-quo matrix of large organizations collecting vast sums of money, dollars often used for very real good works in addition to uses less noble. So why am I against this? Well, I'm not, if I can be allowed to split a hair or two.
Being against something and examining the same object under a critical-thinking lens are not necessarily the same thing. Nothing in my heart desires to see denominations deconstructed or ecumenically fused. The status-quo is there for a reason and supports many good people and good initiatives.
Yet, neither can I remain silent as I think I see something through which Christians might find themselves more deeply satisfied individually and, therefore, equipped more fully to seek the superlative spiritual life described in the Bible.
The solution to unfulfilling group-think, a condition which has the potential to become cumbersome and even rob adherents of spiritual life, is to seek a simple existence together as family in God and before Him.
Ephesians 4:14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming ; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together *by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
I contend that systematic theologies, named theologies, regional theologies, et cetera and et al, fail the simple truths in the Bible by masking them and reducing the clarity with which the Bible speaks. A group of believers who will purpose to build itself in love through submission to the spiritual headship of Jesus will learn to please God together. Individual needs will be met as the whole is prepared to spend eternity with God. It is more complicated than rocket science, perhaps, as it involves humans and not mathematical formulas; nonetheless, the Christian walk together in a group is uniquely sublime in its simplicity and profundity. Why do we bother over making it unnecessarily comlex?
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
My Opinion and the Truth
My stated opinion in the last post likely caused discomfort for some readers, as it may have seemed I had taken a tack of attack. I appreciate that and today would like to qualify my position.
First, with a quote from postmodern redneck's comment to the last post:
"Always keep a distinction in your mind between the actual words of Scripture, and the interpretations you and others put on them. Almost all the fighting is over interpretations; and unlike Scripture, interpretations are not divinely inspired and are not guaranteed to be inerrant."
Second, it's a given churches are "divided" groups just from the regional function of meeting with those in some sort of proximity to one another. Is there something wrong with that? Uh, no.
Aside: I was once in a discussion with a pastor who invited me to attend his church. Since the location of that building and hence the meeting to which he invited me was over twenty miles from my house, I declined over the practicality of his suggestion. He countered with one family in his flock drove a hundred miles round-trip to attend and there was a veiled reference to no price is too great for commitment to the Truth. That begs the question of the line between commitment and extremism, but I can't allow myself to become side-tracked!
Which brings up, perhaps, the defining question of why we have denominations (and non-denominational groups who have the flavor of denominations), and what is wrong with people meeting with others of like mind?
Whose truth?
I do not suggest, as a Campbellite of yore might, that I know how to foster the restored church of the New Testament. That is an example of the kind of red herring many of the rationales are which form the basis of particular-group theologies. That is, in attempting to create a pure society of Christians or a sanctified culture which honors the holiness of God, groups of Christians will sometimes put an over emphasis on some interpretation of Scripture and thus fail God's fullest will.
That I even write the words "God's fullest will" is an example of how things might go wrong. Me stating that God's fullest will is anything in particular reduces God to fitting in a box I have created in my rationale intended to qualify meanings I see in the Bible.
There is much tension in attempting to articulate Truth!
Maybe apostasy is the result of shrinking from that tension in denial of what is needed. If that be true, then this discussion is necessary. Ultimately the real problems which are faced by Christian meetings known as church are articulated clearly in the letters to the seven churches of Revelation and other specifics in Scripture. A topic like this serves an evil end if pursued to the point of polarizing brethren around defense and offense of any man-developed truth, the exact emotional dynamic I decry in the last post. Conversely however, is there not a positive outcome in examining what about our groups fosters lukewarmness and other abandonments of our first love, Jesus?
Next up, my take on the solution to the problems of group-think in the church.
First, with a quote from postmodern redneck's comment to the last post:
"Always keep a distinction in your mind between the actual words of Scripture, and the interpretations you and others put on them. Almost all the fighting is over interpretations; and unlike Scripture, interpretations are not divinely inspired and are not guaranteed to be inerrant."
Second, it's a given churches are "divided" groups just from the regional function of meeting with those in some sort of proximity to one another. Is there something wrong with that? Uh, no.
Aside: I was once in a discussion with a pastor who invited me to attend his church. Since the location of that building and hence the meeting to which he invited me was over twenty miles from my house, I declined over the practicality of his suggestion. He countered with one family in his flock drove a hundred miles round-trip to attend and there was a veiled reference to no price is too great for commitment to the Truth. That begs the question of the line between commitment and extremism, but I can't allow myself to become side-tracked!
Which brings up, perhaps, the defining question of why we have denominations (and non-denominational groups who have the flavor of denominations), and what is wrong with people meeting with others of like mind?
Whose truth?
I do not suggest, as a Campbellite of yore might, that I know how to foster the restored church of the New Testament. That is an example of the kind of red herring many of the rationales are which form the basis of particular-group theologies. That is, in attempting to create a pure society of Christians or a sanctified culture which honors the holiness of God, groups of Christians will sometimes put an over emphasis on some interpretation of Scripture and thus fail God's fullest will.
That I even write the words "God's fullest will" is an example of how things might go wrong. Me stating that God's fullest will is anything in particular reduces God to fitting in a box I have created in my rationale intended to qualify meanings I see in the Bible.
There is much tension in attempting to articulate Truth!
Maybe apostasy is the result of shrinking from that tension in denial of what is needed. If that be true, then this discussion is necessary. Ultimately the real problems which are faced by Christian meetings known as church are articulated clearly in the letters to the seven churches of Revelation and other specifics in Scripture. A topic like this serves an evil end if pursued to the point of polarizing brethren around defense and offense of any man-developed truth, the exact emotional dynamic I decry in the last post. Conversely however, is there not a positive outcome in examining what about our groups fosters lukewarmness and other abandonments of our first love, Jesus?
Next up, my take on the solution to the problems of group-think in the church.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Divide Between Goats and Sheep or I'm Not a Fan of Denominationalism
Assumptions allow us to agree together but prevent depth of understanding, thus a depth of connection. We too often accept both our individual limitations and the limits on communion among brethren as a function of our fear and/or pride. (It’s a double whammy but part of the truth of ourselves we must face.) We call these limits the fruit of our flesh, and trust then such is covered by blood. Does this reflect God's will on earth? I think not.
One of the great ironies of church history is that in attempting to determine exactly what the written word says--as a sincere act of service no doubt--groups have developed around particular interpretations of the Bible. We name this with the dignified sounding word doctrine, and begin separating from others over whether or not they believe as we do. In the name of God who says His disciples are known by their love, we divide the people for whom Jesus bled and died intending to redeem them into union with Himself and with one another.
In the pursuit of our doctrines to establish the boundaries of fellowship, we hold huge portions of brethren to be wrong and not worthy of fellowship.
In the pursuit of holiness, we hold to traditions which become empty of meaning in the ritualistic practice and leave people cold and heartless but approved as members of our particular doctrine club.
Further in the effort to avoid disagreement, we have carved out territories of belief systems, whereby we do not have to deal with individual differences--we have been bitten once too often with the deep teeth of conflict and want to avoid the emotional pain. Instead we teach, “Believe thusly and you will be walking in truth,” which reduces the Christian walk with God for too many people into nothing more than being in the truth as evidenced by holding forth the doctrine club’s spoken and unspoken social expectations and assumptions.
Consequently, the hearers of doctrine become a people who are not given instruction and support in walking in the nature of Jesus. (Note I am not describing those who are hearers of the Spirit of God and are mixed in with the subject of this piece. This is the goat and sheep dichotomy.) The word Jesus is often frequently given as the rationale for what is done and taught, but the Living Spirit of Jesus is not active in the hearts of those gathered under the conditions described above. Such conditions are to the detriment of all individually and the development corporately overall of groups who seek only to behave according to a tradition. The end result is a hollow spiritual façade with little spiritual maturity in living out the nature of Jesus.
It has to do with how we see and hear. Ever wonder why God did not cause the Scriptures to be written from a more clearly developed outline, which spells out step by step how to live as a Christian?
Parables hide the truth from all except those who have ears to hear. The Scripture's meaning can be in plain view and plainly read, but is pieced together in revelatory wonder by those who have a heart for God alone and above all else. Thus are few taken out of all who are called to know Him.
(A corollary and needed essay is probably about what is The Doctrine around which Christians need to unite. That is another idea, and I need to get to work.)
Have a blessed weekend and a glorious reunion with others of like heart in joy and thanksgiving during the coming holiday. Don't know when I will post again!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Long Time, No Write
The baby's asleep. The two women in our home are too. Not only is the house quiet, but our town has been unusually quiet for the past two nights, as well. If light made noise, that huge full moon setting in the west would have us all awake and grouchy. Well, I am used to being awake at 5:00 AM, so I wouldn't be grouchy I guess. Funny how in trying to make writing interesting, the facts get switched around a bit.
I realized this morning looking at that moon through the bared branches of late autumn, that it has been nearly a month since I have written anything for the blog. I don't have an essay for here this morning either. I decided to simply give a glimpse into what is happening with my writing thoughts.
I have spent time selecting old posts to consider for use in a small book--devotional maybe-- about walking in the spirit. I have rewritten several into (hopefully) a more useful form for a book format. This began to push me into a corner. I didn't want to invest much time in rewrites that I had not considered well the final putting together thereof. The whole needs a flow, a focus theme that builds insight into the topic. Or so I am thinking. I spent some time searching for an organizing framework for the whole work, which wasn't time at the keyboard but was time in these quiet morning hours thinking over the finish. Knowing where you are going is useful to getting there, though from a creative standpoint, not absolutely necessary. Sometimes the creative process discovers its own path and end--like a walk in the woods!
In the process I found myself doing a Bible study on holiness. Searching with Crosswalk.com tools, I identified 118 occurrences of words that are translated one of four ways: holiness, righteousness, sanctification, and godliness. That caused me to wonder about other words.
Here are the current results:
God 1170
Jesus = 948
Christ =496
father = 340 (many of these are about an earthly father--didn't read to sort that out)
spirit = 319
Holy Spirit = 92, so possibly 227 times of just the word spirit
love = 184
hope = 68
faith = 228
peace = 88
joy =68
devil/satan =65
evil = 98
sin = 94
I have tried several other "meaty" words with direct spiritual meaning looking for a large number of mentions. Nothing I can think of compares to these. Any ideas?
Obviously I am excluding prepositions, conjunctions and common nouns like day, night, man, or woman. Also, searching in the NASB for hell, abyss, lake of fire and outer darkness was about 30 mentions together.
Suggest some words for me you think may have multiple mentions in the NT and are key to a "spiritual" understanding. It would be helpful for me!
I realized this morning looking at that moon through the bared branches of late autumn, that it has been nearly a month since I have written anything for the blog. I don't have an essay for here this morning either. I decided to simply give a glimpse into what is happening with my writing thoughts.
I have spent time selecting old posts to consider for use in a small book--devotional maybe-- about walking in the spirit. I have rewritten several into (hopefully) a more useful form for a book format. This began to push me into a corner. I didn't want to invest much time in rewrites that I had not considered well the final putting together thereof. The whole needs a flow, a focus theme that builds insight into the topic. Or so I am thinking. I spent some time searching for an organizing framework for the whole work, which wasn't time at the keyboard but was time in these quiet morning hours thinking over the finish. Knowing where you are going is useful to getting there, though from a creative standpoint, not absolutely necessary. Sometimes the creative process discovers its own path and end--like a walk in the woods!
In the process I found myself doing a Bible study on holiness. Searching with Crosswalk.com tools, I identified 118 occurrences of words that are translated one of four ways: holiness, righteousness, sanctification, and godliness. That caused me to wonder about other words.
Here are the current results:
God 1170
Jesus = 948
Christ =496
father = 340 (many of these are about an earthly father--didn't read to sort that out)
spirit = 319
Holy Spirit = 92, so possibly 227 times of just the word spirit
love = 184
hope = 68
faith = 228
peace = 88
joy =68
devil/satan =65
evil = 98
sin = 94
I have tried several other "meaty" words with direct spiritual meaning looking for a large number of mentions. Nothing I can think of compares to these. Any ideas?
Obviously I am excluding prepositions, conjunctions and common nouns like day, night, man, or woman. Also, searching in the NASB for hell, abyss, lake of fire and outer darkness was about 30 mentions together.
Suggest some words for me you think may have multiple mentions in the NT and are key to a "spiritual" understanding. It would be helpful for me!
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Life Update
I spent about six hours today catching up on some paper grading.
We are enjoying our fall. So beautiful as always!
I have been working on the book in the time I created by not trying to post weekly. That is currently a slow process, but it is processing.
I miss the small exchanges I knew as part of posting here. Fellowship occurs even across a cyber-abyss. Our God is amazing!!
We are enjoying our fall. So beautiful as always!
I have been working on the book in the time I created by not trying to post weekly. That is currently a slow process, but it is processing.
I miss the small exchanges I knew as part of posting here. Fellowship occurs even across a cyber-abyss. Our God is amazing!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)