Starlyth Blogs!

We Lost The Message Somewhere

November 4, 2008 · faith, life hack, love, politics, society · Comments Off

A Brief Introduction to this Post:
As I begin to write this, citizens of the United States of America go to the voting booths for an election whose results will be historic regardless of which party wins. By the time this actually posts, we might have a new president-elect. I’ve been trying to avoid politics on my blog recently, mostly because I don’t feel politics, as they stand now, are actually helpful for the people, and honestly, my heart is warmed by the Gospel, not by the machinations of the political parties. So, while this post touches on politics, somewhat, that isn’t what it is about.

I was not going to write of politics in my blog, but after reading of Paul’s optimism in Philippians, I feel the need to.

Much of Obama’s appeal, besides the usual political can’t-nail-them-to-the-wall or hold-them-to-their-promises (regardless of political party), is that he has packaged the concept of hope well. Obama’s success should be a wake up to the church, not because of his politics, but because he’s repackage the quintessential Christian message―hope.

The church should not look at Obama’s campaign as a success of marketing (which it is), but the very reason why the church is not very healthy. We lost the message. Actually, that’s wrong. The message is still there in scripture. We just left it there.

As the church became party to the culture war (which it should have) and politics (which it should, in some regards, as its members are voters), it also became part of the negativity that go along with both, which it shouldn’t have. The church became obsessed with various pet agendas (pornography and so on on the right, justice issues and so on on the left) that they lost their focus―the hope that we have because of Jesus.

Forget church growth, forget being part of the culture, remember Jesus

A Quip On A Manufactured Collapse

September 18, 2008 · economics, ethics and morals, faith, history, politics, society · Comments Off

Michael Novak’s theory regarding Western democratic capitalism can be summerized as a three-legged stool with the legs being, political freedom, economic freedom, and moral restraint.

We are witnessing the after effects of the complete removal of moral restraint. Political and economic freedoms have been curtailed for the last 20 years or so, but they are still, in basic form, there. The politicians (on both sides) are calling for new regulations, however, as crass as this sounds, there is a similarity between the current panic seeking to create new regulations…and abortion—morality cannot be legislated.

Here are a couple of good articles.

This Too Will Pass (i.e., DON’T PANIC)

AIG: A Study in the Difference Between Campaigning and Governing (i.e., ignore both political campaigns in regards to their rhetoric on the issue)

Thinking/Posing/Contemplating, Not Just Reacting

September 2, 2008 · ethics and morals, faith, life hack, love, politics, quickpost, society, war · Comments Off

In this election cycle, talk about an emerging evangelical political center abounds. Much of the discussion is about how conservative and liberal Christians can work together to realize Christ-commanded essentials and their corollaries: care for the poor, for example, and its extensions regarding access, justice, and health care.

THEOOZE – Articles: Viewing Article

My, How They Love One Another

August 20, 2008 · economics, education, ethics and morals, faith, history, love, politics, society · Comments Off

Are we Kicking Grandma to the Curb?

For a number of reasons, I have a real problem with what this post (and the quoted article/news story) say. Not because it isn’t true, but because it is. I don’t think that nursing homes are an ideal situation, that’s for sure, but am I capable of taking care of my parents (all four of them) as they get older? I doubt it.

There is something to be said about the “good ol’ days,” where aged relatives would live in the same home as at least one of their children. I certainly think it would be healthier for society if we weren’t so segregated in our lives according to age bracket (one of the things many churches are also dealing with). However, in cases such as in my family, where one person has Alzheimer’s, it can be a full time job.

I also think that the changing perception of life changes in regards to age have a significant impact on the situation. Take, for example, the fact that 100 years ago, most education ended with the 8th grade, and, frankly, there are questions on those final exams that I couldn’t answer. That person was to become a productive member of society. Now, the expectation is that they will become productive 4 years later, assuming they don’t go to college.

Much of the same can be attached to “retirement”. In that same era, there was no retirement. The modern “golden age of retirement” really means, you’ve saved the money you wasted your life earning, now go spend it, or least that is what far too many retirement salespeople and financial “guides” are trying to sell. Well, if a person is burning their life away to go play at the end of the working era, why would they want to take care of ageing parents. In many ways, it sounds like some kids, “my parents just cramp my style.”

Back to the really hard part, the church not doing what it is called to do. The church has fallen prey to the same mentality as the populace, the government will take care of it! Then there is the whole lawyer thing, and the lawsuits that seem to come with them. What church is willing to take on that kind of litigative burden? What church can afford it? It reminds me of a post I read today, “A law degree only allows you to add friction to the economy…”

Litigation, cramping the style, whatever the reason…this is just not good.

What Is Speaking The Truth In Love?

August 20, 2008 · ethics and morals, faith, history, love, politics, society · Comments Off

Keith Giles, over at subversive1, seems to have had an interesting experience regarding a person shutting down the conversation (or the comments) that challenged this individual’s theology/teaching. Keith states that he rarely, if ever, does this kind of public revealing (and I believe him. I just wanted to put that out there), however, he felt compelled to in his post Speaking The Truth In Love.

I can’t say as I disagree with either Keith’s motivation, his acted upon reticence (versus just saying it) to call people out, or his post. However, it brings out something that is an ongoing issue, not just in the church, but in general human discourse. It is no longer about disagreeing, but it is much more. It is more emotional.

For whatever reason, I just thought of the story in U.S. history, when some offended member of the U.S. Legislature decided to go beat some other legislator with a cane in the time leading up to the War Between The States (or the Civil War).

Frankly, a lot of discourse today isn’t discourse, but proverbial caning. The real issue is that there are a lot of people that, when challenged, say that the person challenging them is prejudiced in someway, and by calling them prejudiced, seek to (and, sadly, far too often succeed) shut the other person up by what is effectively name-calling.

I could say that Keith was lucky that the posts were only deleted, rather than an ensuing name-calling in an attempt to shut him up. However, it is way too easy (and I am prey to this as well) to succumb to the pressure to just “let it go,” and accept them, despite their teaching being contrary to yours.

What Happens When The Emerging Church Holds Up A Mirror To The Established Church

July 24, 2008 · ethics and morals, faith, love, society · Comments Off

Brian Mclaren recently addressed the 2008 Lambeth Conference (see Wikipedia), and while he does not (despite media opinion to the contrary) represent the entirety (one could question even a significant minority) of the MEECM, it is often worthwhile to hear what he has to say.

In the article above, there are a couple of quotes attributed to him that I would like to address.

“You might say that evangelism is almost non-existent because the Christian faith is, to be very frank, almost non-existent.”

This quote is interesting as, from what I understand of him, he does not view the established church as a faithful community. There are many that are not, but most of them are, it is just that they are established so that many (if not most) of their people are not faithful, but cultural Christians. However, this is where I might at least annoy a few people, as anytime I hear “America is a Christian nation,” I squirm. Now, I squirm not because some of the founders were Deists (even that, especially in regards to Thomas Jefferson who later in life called himself a Christian, has recently come into question), but because most Americans were, at best, cultural Christians, “even” back then.

This constant delusion (harsh, I know) that the United States is a Christian nation is much of the problem in regards to many Christians asking, “how did our culture/country get to where it is today?” If you assume (an old politically-incorrect phrase comes to mind) that everyone is a Christian because they were born in a “Christian” nation, and thereby share your understanding of Scripture and relationship with God, you will be sorely disappointed. A Christian should look at the story of the Jewish people who were Jewish and therefore “God’s People.” Look where that mentality got them.

So Mclaren is correct, but this is not a new thing.

…they needed to ditch “internal institutional maintenance” and focus instead on the “outward mission” of making disciples among all people. That, he said, was “our only hope of saving the church from division, diversion, implosion, irrelevance and triviality”.

This argument against the “institution” of the church is a contact refrain in the MEECM. I can’t, and won’t, say that is does not have some validity, especially in regards to the historical fact that the institutional church has been used for power and control too many times, and also the fact that too often preserving the institution has come at the expense of the message (that will be the next and last section in this post).

There is NO question about the outward mission. In fact, the Church of the Nazarene stepped up to the plate, acknowledging its failures in that are, and changing its focus to the outward mission.

One of the other refrains in the MEECM is that there are too many denominations, while I will agree with that to some degree, how many people are there in the world. Also, much of that argument is based on IRS records. If I start my own church (like many of those in the MEECM), but do not declare that I am part of a larger organization (whether I am or not), I am another denomination according to the IRS. Makes for a lot of denominations of one church.

The real question is do we define ourselves by our denomination, or by our belief in the essentials of the Christian faith: Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, who came to atone for our sins (okay, that is a very short version).

There is also Mclaren’s inferred assumption that all these denominations are invalid, for the very reason that there are so many (the same view the Roman Catholic Church has of those not in communion with it). I have heard it expressed that we are finite, and each Christian tries to live a life imbued by an infinite God. As we cannot fully express the entirety of God, what makes anyone think that one church will do the same?

“Will it be the gospel of evacuation (to heaven after death) or will it be Jesus’ Gospel, the Gospel of the kingdom of God, the message that brings reconciliation, hope, transformation and engagement?”

This, in many ways, is one of Mclaren’s more dangerous—faithwise—statements (I’m going to leave the sexuality one alone, as I have discussed it enough…for now), as it creates a choice where there is none. Both are the message. However, I suspect that “reconciliation, hope, transformation and engagement” is being viewed from a humanist (that is human-to-human) perspective, rather than the biblical view (God-to-human, and then human-to-human by extension). I am not saying that these are not good objectives of the church, in fact, they are, in many ways, the fruit of the church. However, without the underlying faith in the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ, these become good works, and works without faith are dead.

Beware of Following the Trend

June 28, 2008 · faith, society · Comments Off

There are far too many churches that are trying to follow the trends in an attempt to “grow” their congregations. The first problem is that they are focusing on quantity not quality. The second problem is that the churches are always a few years behind. A huge number of churches are trying to be “relevant”, which really is (to me) being like everything else, thus the differentiation between the church and the culture is erased (salt with your light, anyone?).

The rage against the liturgy (okay, that is hyperbole) that seems to be much of this is dead, even in the “evangelical” church. Rick Phillips, in his blog post Random Thoughts on Gender, Based on a Small Sample Size, is only a small wave in a bigger change. The Roman Catholic church is growing, as is the Eastern Orthodox church, especially among the very section that being “relevant” is targeted at. Of course, too many churches have bought into this, so they feel that they cannot go back. Look, we don’t proclaim to have worship infallibility, so let’s act like we don’t.

My favorite line in Mr. Phillips post was, “This [classic, historically-rooted (i.e. traditional) worship], too, is now counter-culturally Christian.”

Church-Going Facades

June 7, 2008 · depression, faith, love, society, unclassified · Comments Off

It’s easy for Christians in our day to fall into the “showy religiosity” pit. We put on our happiest face at church, even though our hearts are far from the Lord. Or we look as if we’re worshipping with zeal when our minds are wandering.

Avoiding a Show of Religiosity
Daily Reflection and Prayer by Mark D. Roberts from The High Calling

Sometime back, I heard someone speak about a painful truth of church attendance, that is that people lie when responding to the question, “how are you?” Of course, I think some people lie (whether at church or elsewhere) when they even ask the question with its implication of actually caring. Part, and only part, of the issue is that we Christians have been told that we are to be always joyful, confusing joy with happiness. We have the deep-seated love and assurance in Jesus Christ, but sorry, we’re not going to be happy all the time.

Now, I am not talking about discussing all one’s woes, but one’s heart. If I am feeling depressed, not an uncommon occurrence, I shouldn’t be also concerned about others’ judgment of my Christian walk. We all have emotions of varying states and sorts.

What does this have to do with the quote above and the related scripture (Matthew 6:16-18)?

Is praying out load and publicly to be seen, or giving alms to the poor to be seen, or publicly fasting (and looking like it) any different than wearing the false Christian joy face?

The Form of the Future

May 23, 2008 · ethics and morals, history, love, politics, society, technology · 1 comment

When I’m operating under restrictions, I definitely feel constrained by them, but without those restraints, it doesn’t seem as if I my actions are actually accomplishing anything.

…the Net truly is vast and infinite. Who knows, maybe a new society we’ve never even dreamed of is already being born

I greatly enjoy Japanese anime. There is a lot about it, like many of their movies, that shows that the Japanese culture is trying to work through the entirety of its history through art (which kind of reminds me of Timothy Zahn’s Grand Admiral Thrawn). I just watched Ghost in the Shell: Solid State Society on NetFlix.

In this movie, a group of solitary elderly people are recruited to run a network to save this future world of Japan. The funny thing is that I watched it as an idea had been coalescing in my head about the future of Earth governments and societies and cultures, and the elderly were the key. I’m thinking about writing a few short stories about it, but who knows if they will ever see paper or web.

The first quote brought a question to mind: if we break down all the barriers (whether they be social, political, religious, scientific, genetic, etc.), what will we (the human race) do? What will be our purpose?

The second quote is something that people try to define as Web 2.0 or Web 3.0 (or whatever name you want to give it. I could care less what its name is.)―the future. I think the church―humanity as a whole―is still trying to absorb what has been wrought in the realm of mass communication (even communications as unimportant and ineffectual as my blog).

Just like everyone else, I have a fear of the unknown. What will the future hold?

Rediscovering Sabbath Rest

March 18, 2008 · Technological Enervation, faith, history, life hack, society · 2 comments

In Rediscovering Sabbath Rest, Mark Early brings further attention to the “Secular Sabbath” that seems to be gaining steam in the secular world.

As I mentioned in What? Me, Unplug?, I know I should try this myself. I’m always plugged in, even on Sunday.

I remember years ago hearing about how even non-devout Christian families would do all their chores on Saturday, even food preparation, so that Sunday would be wholly devoted to God. I freely acknowledge that I discredited their ideals at the time. I am not so quick to do so now.