It is not permitted to the Church to accept alms from pagans.

Canons Attributed to St. Patrick, Irish, 6th century

But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!”

Acts 8.20

During the last presidential campaign, you will recall, a group of pastors decided to test the IRS’s resolve by preaching sermons in which they endorsed a particular candidate for the nation’s highest office. Such is not permitted to organizations who enjoy a tax-deductible status with the IRS, on pain of possibly having their tax-exempt status revoked. So far there have been no negative ramifications, but it may just be that the jury is still out. The situation serves to remind us how dependent churches are on government largesse. Wouldn’t it just be easier to renounce our tax-exempt status and then preach whatever we want? Well, no, pastors will tell you, because contributions will drop off significantly if people don’t get a tax deduction for their offering.

Does that mean that not only are our churches captive to government, but individual believers as well? Is it really true that church members would not give as much, or maybe not at all, if they weren’t going to get a tax deduction? This situation strikes me as a kind of receiving alms from pagans. We give so that we can save some of the money the IRS might otherwise require of us. We guard our tongues from the pulpit so that IRS won’t take away our tax-exempt status because our people will reduce their giving to us if they don’t get a deduction. Is it just me, or does this whole situation smell oddly of Peter’s rebuke of Simon Magus? It’s sad to think that Kingdom business is held captive to bottom lines held captive to government rules held captive to pagan legislators and policy-makers held captive to the father of lies. I wonder how many other ways we allow ourselves to remain captive to the world because of some perceived benefit?

Lord, set me free from everything that keeps me from seeking Your Kingdom and righteousness as my highest priority in life.

T. M. Moore

His thoughts in regards to churches and their taxation has come to mind for me previously. While the secularists say they want a separation of church and state, what would happen if the church were free to preach truly? Would they truly be more comfortable?

I’ve been thinking about writing this for a while, but, frankly, it is a rather large undertaking for such a theologically-challenged person as myself, and I don’t want to speak out of turn.  However, in the midst of my MIT studies, I read a paraphrase of John Wesley’s “Means of Grace”.  As John Wesley is, in most regards, the theological father of the Church of the Nazarene, such statements by him must be taken seriously by Nazarenes.  One of John Wesley’s “general” Means of Grace is: keeping the commandments.

I took it as a challenge to actually attempt this.  This is no theological treatise, so don’t take it as such.

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

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)

Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership.

This goes for environmentalism, “poverty”, and health care programs as well. There seems to be a significant agreement that there is something seriously wrong in this country in regards to these issues, just no agreement of methodology to fix them. In other words, just because I don’t agree with a person’s proposed solution to an issue, does not mean that I don’t think that there is one.

Frontier women were far bolder and hardier than today’s pampered, petulant bourgeois feminists, always looking to blame their complaints about life on someone else.

Yeah, well, a lot of men (including myself, probably) would fit into that description as well. Ouch.

Like Los Angeles and San Francisco, Manhattan and Washington occupy their own mental zones — nice to visit but not a place to stay if you value independent thought these days.

Ouch!

A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit.

I give Ms. Paglia kudos. At least in regards to feminism, she is consistent.

I’m torn by her reaction. Her opinion is, “it’s all about me,” whether it’s choosing not to be “inconvenienced” by a baby, or “inconvenienced” by a murderer. On the other hand, it has a form of consistency, forthrightness, and forethought, which makes it easier to discuss.

If Sarah Palin tries to intrude her conservative Christian values into secular government, then she must be opposed and stopped. But she has every right to express her views and to argue for society’s acceptance of the high principle of the sanctity of human life.

Here, of course, I do have a problem. At what point does it cross the line? especially when she says:

…Democratic ideology itself seems to have become a secular substitute religion.

If that is the case (which I believe it is for many on the left, but also “Republican” ideology on the right), than they, according to her logic, should be stopped as well. Then, you are left with politicians sticking their wet fingers in the wind. Leadership of any sort cannot exist in such an environment.

More to the point, theologically, the Christian assembly is a fellowship of the redeemed. It is a manifestation, as well as an anticipation or foretaste, of the great assembly that Christ is building—the assembly of the firstborn in heaven that will be revealed on the last Day (Heb 12:22-24). The purpose of our earthly assemblies, therefore, is to fellowship together in what we already share—our union with Christ—as we listen to and respond to him together, and build his assembly by the words we speak.

This runs counter to the common (although often unspoken) assumption that one of the main aims of a church gathering is to be attractive to non-Christians—to draw them in, to intrigue them, and to evangelize them.

The Sola Panel | Is church for evangelism?

This certainly flies in the face of much of the “church growth” movement that we’ve been seeing. It also, interestingly enough, flies in the face of much of the emerging church movement as well (but not nearly all of it, let’s be clear). So what is the church to do then?

I’m not sure what the entirety of my opinion is on this one. It just stuck me as an important thing to consider.

hat tip to:Between Two Worlds

When they saw him, they worshiped him—but some of them doubted!
Matthew 28:17 (NLT)

When the eleven disciples of Jesus met Jesus in Galilee, “they worshiped him—but some of them doubted!” What a stunning statement! For one thing, given that these very disciples became the foundational leaders of the early church, you might expect Matthew to give us a whitewashed version of their interaction with Jesus. Yet Matthew tells us the whole truth: the disciples worshiped Jesus, yet some also doubted. Some weren’t sure what to think of the resurrected Jesus. Was he real? Whas he a ghost? Could he be trusted? The blunt honesty of Matthew demonstrates the reliability of his Gospel. He’ll tell it like it was, even when he and his colleagues don’t look so good.

This passage also gives hope to those of us who struggle with doubt. We know what it’s like to worship the Lord . . . and also to doubt. We sing hymns of praise, and we mean what we sing. But every now and then a little voice interrupts our worship: “Is this really true? Did Jesus really die for me? Are my sins really forgiven?” For those who doubt, the example of the disciples offers encouragement. God does not reject us when we doubt. Like the disciples, we can live in the tension of a living faith. We can ask hard questions. We can wonder. And we can still be disciples of Jesus, those he uses to further the work of his kingdom.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: Do you know what it’s like to worship and to doubt, even in the same moment? What do you do with your doubts? How does the example of the disciples impact you?

PRAYER: Gracious Lord, I must admit that I hate being someone prone to doubt. I know people whose faith in you is rock solid. No matter what happens, no matter what ideas challenge them, they never waver in their trust in you. But I am not one of these. You know that. For some reason I’m wired to question, to wonder, and yes, to doubt.

So, first off, I thank you for accepting me as I am, for choosing me to be your disciple in spite of my penchant for uncertainty. How glad I am that you don’t require flawless faith!

Moreover, thank you for being patient with me, for making yourself known to me again and again so that I might trust in you. Yes, there have been desert times of plaguing doubt. But in those times you have reached out to me with your mercy, giving reassurance and comfort. Thank you, Lord!

My request today is simple: Help me to trust you more! Even though I’ll never be able to figure everything out, help me to have confidence in you. When doubts arise, may I lean upon you. Help me to trust you more and more each day. Amen.

Writting by: Mark D. Roberts distributed by the Daily Reflection at TheHighCalling.org

Mark D. Roberts, as Senior Director and Scholar-in-Residence for Laity Lodge, is an advisor and frequent contributor to TheHighCalling.org. A Presbyterian pastor, Mark earned his Ph.D. in New Testament from Harvard University. He has written six books, including No Holds Barred: Wrestling with God in Prayer (WaterBrook, 2005). He blogs daily at www.markdroberts.com.

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

As a pastor I am blown away by Where’s Your Jesus Now? A lot of pastors are trained to do theology like scientists test theories…in a pristine, antiseptic, white lab-coat environment. We pastors want to be tidy, neat, clean and “biblically sound.” Don’t let messy people and chaotic life mess with our theology. Our theology must be unsullied by the vast unwashed (theologically-speaking) masses. Perhaps that is why the Church is hemmorhaging the younger generations by the thousands in USAmerica. They aren’t drinking the kool-aid of tidy, ivory-tower generated, pew-shaped, clean spirituality.

jesus the radical pastor | exploring the life and mission of the 1st century Jesus for our 21st century » Blog Archive » Where’s Your Jesus Now? What a book!

The funny thing is that the day after I wrote my latest response in that discussion (and hopefully my last post in that discussion), C. Michael Patton wrote a small post on his blog discussing that exact issue.

I think (but have no proof) that the whole person who commits suicide goes to Hell was started by the Roman Catholic Church. For personal reasons (other than about me), this has caused me a lot of concern. Does this ease my concern? Somewhat, along with a sermon I heard a few years back, but there is still that thought in the back of my mind…

Vin Diesal strikes one as just a nameless action hero typecasted actor, and I suppose he is in some ways.  Yet here, he wants to bring to film one of the greatest military men that has been ignored (especially by Hollywood).  I wish him a lot of success, and I can’t wait to see what he did.

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.

I will say that as a “Reformed and Baptist”, Freeman’s take on how God’s graces and mercies fit into predestination, etcetera, are not my view of course, but God does change the course of history to fit into His plan, but without question, it is my hope and desire that my plans will fulfill His plan, and if they don’t, be open and honest with God, and accepting with a servant’s heart.

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.

Because we are in a world now that is not nearly so hierarchical as other generations were, it is possible for your congregation to network laterally with other congregations that are equally faithful. And that is exactly what’s happening in the New Wineskins network of churches, the Confessing Church Network, there are such networks available, and that are very active.

Rev. Parker T. Williamson

(Whitehorse Inn podcast entitled “Broken Covenant”. Originally aired on 30 Mar 08)

I guess we need to be careful to use stereotypes. I suspect (but readily acknowledge that I don’t know) Rev. Williamson is uncomfortable with (if not downright antagonistic towards) the MEECM (missional/emergining/emergent church movement(s)). What struck me with his comments was that how much it sounded just like many in the MEECM.

This tells me that the “established” church isn’t as clueless as many in the MEECM seem to think.

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&emdash;faithwise&emdash;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.

For those who know this "dark" part of me, the parallels are obvious. For those who have experienced similar feelings, welcome to the club. The open and honest truth is that for me the darkness is depression, and I have been dealing with it since childhood, and it came into full fruition during the teenage years (When else?).

Well, if the darkness is depression, what is the chasm, you might ask.

suicide

(Before you panic, or read too much into that single word, please read the rest of this.)

So I was at the edge of the chasm many times.  Frankly, it scares me how close I was.  By God’s grace, I never tried, but I also knew that trying was only a one time thing.  I’ve struggled with and fought depression.  My friends, who were aware, struggled with me.  My parents struggled with me, too, but I don’t think they were fully aware of it all until much later.  Of course, at least three out of four of my parents struggle(d) with depression as well.  I’m not sure theirs was/is, on the most part, as moribund as mine, but, frankly, depression is a depressing thing to deal with, let alone talk about.

The light is the key.  Before I knew God, as I know Him now through Christ, even in my darkest hours, I just couldn’t give up.  Part of it, I know, was just plain stubbornness.  The other part, though, was something else completely.  It seemed, even then, that there was a kernel of hope and optimism that, frankly, wasn’t mine.

Regardless of one’s view of baptism and all that, my life (rather than my life as a child, and thereby an extension of my parents’ lives) was not Christian until well after my first true failure in life, in my mid-twenties.  The Christianity of that time was also very immature (not that I’m saying I’m particularly mature now).  All through that time, I’ve struggled with depression and thoughts of suicide.

I’ve railed (internally) at all those who say no real Christian could possibly be depressed.  I knew that they didn’t have a clue (and I still believe that most of them don’t).

However, I heard sermon from Pastor Garcy (who was a temporary pastor at Moscow Church of the Nazarene when Joni and I first moved here to Moscow), who apologized to all of those who he mis-served (with a good heart and intentions) by not addressing their pain.  I don’t think I ever cried during a sermon before, but I did then.

It was okay that I was in pain.

Not okay as in, continue to have it, but okay in that I was still a Christian.  Just because I love Jesus, that doesn’t mean that all my pains are instantly cured (not that it doesn’t happen to some).  Jesus warns us that we will still have pain and troubles in this world.

I think I can safely say, as I look back, that that sermon was a turning point.  I still deal with depression, and it can still wallop me pretty hard, but it seems, from my limited perspective that the duration is shortening and, for sure, the depth is becoming shallower for my episodes.

On the 9th of this month (July 2008), I had an experience that I wish I could share fully with those who suffer with depression.  I realized that not only had Jesus died for my sins, but to ease my burdens.  I had understood that intellectually, but not to my core, especially the core that included the dark chasm of my soul.

In case you were wondering, the light in the story is the Spirit.  While God puts the Holy Spirit in us, he grants us the freedom, in His love, to accept it.  Jesus carried the light to the world, and into me.  I am nowhere near done with the darkness, but now there is more light than dark, and each day a little more shadow fades away.

The other problem, which I think was also part of my struggle was that I wouldn’t change my view of myself.  I was just going to have to deal with my depression; that I would always have it.  I defined much of myself by my depression, and I suspect it was that change of heart that was key to this latest experience.  We are called to surrendered our lives to Christ, that includes my depression.

While I cannot know the walk that you are on, I hope that you can open your heart and mind to my words.

Have you ever been bored silly listening once again to the flight attendant rattling off the routine…

…should the cabin pressure actually drop at 30,000 feet and those little yellow masks make their real debut, they will instantly become objects of supreme interest…

John Frye argues that much of the Gospel is lost in our suburban lives (even here in Moscow, Idaho). I would actually argue that, as a general rule, the immediacy and context of the Gospel is lost in the United States, and even in all of “Western” “Civilization”.

I suspect that he has connected, perhaps not even realizing it (but, knowing what I know, I think he does know), with part of the reason why multimedia, the Internet, plays, and dramas, have become a source of dependency…it allows the Gospel (albeit, in my opinion, somewhat shallowly) to connect to a people who cannot understand the immediacy and urgency of Jesus’ ministry.

“Anyone who does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother!”
Matthew 12:50

He points out that this applies even to “Christian” families, or very specifically to Christians.  Despite “Christian” “family values,” it is Jesus Christ’s value to us that is important.  Mark Roberts makes the arguement, which is a good one, is that we must be very careful to not put our families above Christ.

Hard words to stomach, frankly, which doesn’t make them any less true.   However, no matter how true they are, they are still very hard to live by.

The rage against the liturgy (okay, that is hyperbole) that seems to be much of this, especially in the NBEMCS of the MEECM (missional/emergining/emergent church movement(s)), is dead. 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.”

This impulse appears in broader Christian culture. The title of a book by the bestselling author of Boundaries (Zondervan, 2002) says it all: Safe People: How to Find Relationships That Are Good for You and Avoid Those That Aren’t (Zondervan, 1996). We’ve learned to protect ourselves with spiritual gifts inventories: “I’m afraid I can’t help in the youth group; it’s not my gift.” We consider things edifying if they reinforce what we think, not if they unsettle us (I had this conversation with Christians concerning Pedro the Lion.)

Churches, too, can further insulate their members by catering to these tendencies. Instead of encouraging parishioners to submit to the congregation, an elder, or mentor, churches often teach them to self-diagnose and self-prescribe their spiritual formation regimen. Or they offer a variety of service times and styles to prevent congregants from making difficult (and formative) decisions about priorities.

When you walk without the insulation of shoes, you don’t have the privilege of deciding when to tread rocky ground or cool mud or warm sand. But that’s just what makes our feet resilient. We take the rough terrain when it comes and learn balance in the process. Similarly, if I lived without spiritual insulation, I would learn balance by adjusting my stride to account for difficulties when they arise, not by avoiding them until I’m ready to face them. My spiritual feet would toughen and I would be healthier for it.

What’s the solution? Spiritual disciplines are a great place to start. We can slip off our shoes and maneuver uncomfortable ground through fasting, silence, and giving. Over time—according to the saints who do this sort of thing—you find the periods of discipline more natural than indulgence, and your feet stay bare more often.
You Walk (with God) Wrong | Out of Ur

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?

God wants us to say to him, “I love you.”^†

Of course, the argument that comes up that if all God wants is our love, then why does it matter what we call him or how we relate to him? That is a valid, and good, question. Does it matter what I call you? Does matter how I relate to you? Much of the very problems in our world is how we relate to others. How could it not matter what we call God and how we relate to him?

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?

I haven’t been sold on the emerging church movement, not that they don’t have a few things going for them, but that have forced the “established” church to reevaluate itself, which is a good thing. Another area where the church may reevaluate itself is its world poverty programs. While this may not be ideal, at the same time, in many ways it might be better than the short term mission trips.

Here is a case of Christian teens loving the unloved, and while she may not yet be “saved” in the Christian sense, she has been saved from crashing and burning out.

This is not the first “sermon” I have delivered, but it is the only one that I have video and audio of. If you wish to torture yourself, here are the links:

While that is statistically correct (and I am opening my heart and life to the web here, not the most comfortable thing), it isn’t 100% correct. My wife and I cohabited before marriage. While I would agree that part of it may have well been selfishness, I would also argue that we had a different view of what we were doing. In the article (and I suspect also in the book), it states:

Women see it as a step toward marriage. They think they can audition for this job. Men do it because they like to have the ready availability of sex and having someone share their living expenses. Women should heed their mother’s advice — if you give away the milk, he won’t buy the cow.

While there may be many women and men who be classified as those above, my wife and I weren’t it. I think, that if we had thought it through a little better, we would have just gotten married, but without the marriage ceremony (and the chaos that ended up around that almost happened is crazy enough). When my wife and I moved in together, there were no separate lives. We had a joint checking account the moment she moved in. Everything was joined…as if we were married. I don’t know if my wife and I are different (okay, yes, we are), but marriage conservative Christians need to understand that statistics don’t tell the whole tale.

My wife and I did get marriage counseling prior to marriage, and I still have to admit that it was very beneficial, even though we were already living together. I know that I will have to confront my decisions when my children grow older, and be honest about them. However, it is understanding what a true marriage is, its benefits, the consequences of not having it, and (most importantly) being able to explain it, not just as statistical facts, but as a heart issue with Jesus.

Sometime, I will have to explain why/when we got married, but suffice to say (for now) that God moves in mysterious ways.

That led her to join a nine-month process known in the Catholic Church as RCIA, or Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults.

In the Nazarene Church, we go through a membership class which lasts a few weeks. In the Lutheran Church, the same. However, these classes do not truly teach the faith. Of course, a nine month course like the Roman Catholic Church might scare more than a few people off, which might not be a bad thing. I once heard that the early Christian church, there was a three year “apprenticeship” for new converts before they became baptized. That’s a whole lot different than today, which may explain why so much of the populace call themselves Christian, but have no true understanding of the faith.

Oddly enough, it might also might explain why churches, as a whole, are losing members, not a conflict with the world (although, that doesn’t help), but if the church cares so little about teaching people deeply about the faith, encouraging them to invest in their faith (note: I am not talking about a church building or congregation), perhaps they might not be so quick to leave it.

In the Lutheran church, I heard nightmare stories about confirmation. While they sounded horrible, I suspect that they were inflicted upon the children not as punishment, but for the very reason I mentioned. They became invested in the faith.

Now, that does not mean that through trials, tribulations, doubts, depression, or questions, that a person will not leave the faith. There is nothing that can guarantee it. The end goal is to have a Christian who has more than a cursory understanding of their faith, so that they can truly live it.

“Missional” refers to purposeful.

I have thought that much of the “missional” discussion seemed off-kilter somehow, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. This almost tossed away phrase (but, really, in the ad and PR world there is, or should be, no such thing) I think puts the emphasis in the right place.

However, what it also does is put into question not a few assumptions about living the “Christian” life as a “reluctant” witness. The emphasis is to go out and make disciples of Christ purposefully.

This does not mean I’m going to blindside you, or harass you, until you convert or run away. Does this mean I won’t pray for you, or try to be an example of someone who is a disciple of Christ (no matter how poorly I do it)? Of course not!

What amazes me is how similar his feelings seem to be to Mother Teresa’s.

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.

It is fairly balanced, I think. The biggest thing is not that the concept of Missional Church (as currently described is a few decades old) is new, but that it is not.

Thus, we should not be surprised that God’s new work in mission is also an old work. For we are not shaped primarily by the spirit of the 1950s, the 1990s, or 2008, but by the eternal Spirit, who has been shaping and sending witnesses to the gospel for thousands of years.

Mr. Varian needs to check the Google Zeitgeist. The wisdom of the crowds? Sounds like the wisdom of the mob (not the Mob).

1. Less Television and Computer Gaming May Keep Children Slimmer. Granted, this is kind of a “duh,” however, the reason may not be what you think.
2. An Email Free Day
3. I Need a Virtual Break, No, Really.

What I find interesting in the last article is the term “secular sabbath”. Despite being, from my point of view, a contradiction in terms, the concept is valid. In fact, I am pondering avoiding my computer all Sunday. I might even avoid television and gaming (okay, granted I don’t do much gaming).

This somewhat flies in the face of popular “wisdom” that the up-and-coming generation is “wired” for multi-tasking. Just something else to ponder.

hattip to:The Point

I hope every church, including my own (including me, for that matter), can respond in such love to another’s hurt. I would also hope that those that are hurting understanding something else she wrote:

Most people don’t blame the church directly for the trials in their lives, but many do accuse the church of not responding appropriately when calamity strikes. Church leaders and laypeople alike certainly make mistakes as they care for us in times of need. However, if we allow that their mistakes come from their own wounds and that their love is genuine, if imperfect, we nearly always find ourselves more healed than hurt.

Definitely an article worth reading.

It took all summer for them to decide whether they would have phones. They finally decided against it. And they had two reasons. First, they knew that if they began to use telephones, they would carry out conversations less and less in a face to face manner. Second, if they had telephones, they feared that their children would begin talking more and more exclusively to one another. The decision about telephones was made in light of what was good for the community and for the human word.

As much as I love computers, the Internet, and technology as a whole (although, I’m still not all that fond of phones), I strongly empathize with the Amish here. We strive to create social connections on the Internet, because we seem to have forgotten the ones in our immediate vicinity.

And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

The Curt Jester wrote a great piece regarding the Roman Catholic Church and divorce (and remarriage). He notes that the RC church is accused of being hard of heart for keeping its “old-fashioned” stance on divorce and remarriage. As noted in the scripture above, Jesus addresses that. It is for our (Yes, Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, but He was also speaking to us all.) hardness of heart that divorce was allowed at all⁺.

When he wrote his piece, the Curt Jester was specifically address the selfish nature of people. However, this really isn’t just about selfishness.

A politician, like you and me, can be generous only with his own money. A politician spending other people’s money is, at best, implementing sound policies - and, more realistically, much closer to a burglar who “generously” uses part of his booty to buy rounds of drinks for his buddies.