Questions that make me think
May 29, 2006 on 2:05 am | In Archive | 1 CommentReflections/Meditations Is Christianity a hoax? Is the Church off it’s rocker? Does the Church make Christianity a hoax? Does it make Christ a liar?
Who is Jesus? What was he about? What did his coming really change? And again, how does the Church represent him? How does it portray him? Do we really know Jesus? Is he well-loved and taken care of in our churches, in our nation?
The Psalms record the admonition to “be still and know that I am God.” But how does one know? Is it an inner feeling? Is the reality solely mystical?
What do you think?
Walking to Emmaus
April 17, 2006 on 7:10 am | In Archive, Writings | No CommentsReflections/Meditations It was a confusing world. Three days earlier the hope of their world had died at the hands of Roman executioners. The man they hailed as messiah was dead. It was all so very wrong! He spoke of bringing God’s Kingdom. He spoke of bringing a sword that would set the world at odds. He cared for the common people, the diseased, the discouraged, the downtrodden, and the poor. He challenged those who wanted to build a religious system that ignored their political predicament and their economic oppression. He did not shrink from the designation of “King of the Jews” and he would not deny being appointed of God. So, what went wrong? They killed him! Caiaphas thought it was better that one man be killed to save the current system. And the Romans finally got him for treason.
It had been three days of deep disappointment, confusion, doubts, and despair. What would they do? Where would they go? What was there to live for? As Cleopas and the other disciple (I like to think of it as his wife, which I understand does have some scholarly support) walked those seven weary miles to Emmaus, their lives were empty; their hope was gone. There was some talk of a missing body, and that had even confused them more. What was it about this feast week? Nothing had gone right! It all started so well with that triumphal march, a coronation as it were. But their hopes had evaporated so quickly on that evening when Jesus said that it was all over as he hung in agony upon the cruelest of human tortures, an enemy of the Empire. Just what was this supposed to mean?
As they journeyed, at the ends of themselves, seeking meaning out of chaos, a man inquired about these weighty matters they were arguing about. So they told this man about Jesus of Nazareth and how their hope for the redemption of Israel was shattered so cruelly. They told him of the talk of an empty tomb, of visions of angels, and of their indecision to fall for this wild hope. The stranger was ignited as of a man aflame and spoke of glory through suffering; he went through the ancient Scriptures opening them in a way that revealed the Christ.
And now around the Emmaus table, we find Jesus once again in fellowship around a table. We once again see the power of the Kingdom of God shown alive in the real fellowship of individuals—communion. The disciples had been torn and lost, but now as they sat in fellowship, he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread! Jesus was gone in a physical sense. But the spirit of the place could not have changed—after all, Jesus had now been made known in their lives. The disciples looked at each other and said, “Didn’t our hearts burn within us on the road?” And that very hour they were on the road again relating their experiences and the way Jesus was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. They were drawing others to share this fellowship.
This is probably my favorite picture in the Gospel accounts. Taken from Luke 24, I believe that the power of this narrative is lost on many of us. I see this as the counter-narrative of Genesis 3 where we see mankind out of fellowship with God and estranged. Here we see them in fellowship, Jesus being made known, and the scriptures being opened in a way that portrays Christ. Later this same evening Jesus appeared to the disciples and also opened their minds to understand the scriptures. I believe that the challenge for us is walk the Emmaus road in our world. They dialogued about the scriptures, together focusing on Christ, and their hearts burned within them. How will we do this in world? Are our minds being opened to receive understanding? And is Jesus being made known in our fellowship one with another?
Yoder: in his own words (and Nation’s)
April 7, 2006 on 8:30 am | In Archive, John Howard Yoder | 3 CommentsQuotes/Inspirations I know I have been AWOL for awhile, but I have been doing quite a bit of thinking and reading. So, I’ll share with you some things that I found interesting lately.
I’ve been reading Mark Nation’s biography of John Howard Yoder. Admittedly, Nation is a friend of Yoder, so the biography may be quite limited. There is no doubt, however, that Nation’s work is invaluable for recapping, summarizing, and analyzing Yoder. Although the section on Yoder’s personal life was mostly on his early life, I found this to be one of the most fascinating sections of the book. As I said before, we will have to wait for a truly critical reveiw of that part of John Howard Yoder. Even the section on Yoder’s history was short, but I did enjoy it. I found it particulary interesting that Yoder grew up in an Amish Mennonite church that was wrestling with its identity and refused to bow to conference desires.
One question I, and many others, often ask of John Howard Yoder is this: Why did Yoder stay Mennonite? Nation gives us the answer in Yoder’s own words:
Quote:
I grew up in a relaxed relationship to that culture, never needing, as many do, to prove my independence of it. Never sensing any coercion to stay within it. So that my choice to stay within it, although predisposed obviously by generations of ethnic continuity and by the church faithfulness of my parents, was by no means a matter of bowing to superior pressure but was rather a willing choice made in small stages in young adulthood. That makes it difficult to this day for many Mennonites, especially younger ones, to understand me when they, although chronologically younger than I, are, in a sense, representative of an earlier phase of the denominational quarrel with culture because they still had to fight Mennonitism in its more conservative forms to prove their independence of it. Whereas I had greater freedom and was therefore able progressively to accept that as my story without being coerced to do so. -John Howard Yoder, 1980, from Nation 9
Another thing that fascinated me was the Yoder-Bender connection. I believe the only thing I’ll say about that is to once again quote Yoder. This is from a letter to Bender in 1952:
Quote:
What has happened to me is that in the process of growing up I have put together an interest in Anabaptism, which you gave me, an MCC experience to which you were instrumental in assigning me, and theological study to which you directed me, to come out with what is a more logical fruition of your own convictions than you yourself realize. -J. H. Yoder to H. S. Bender, 1952, from Nation 20
Now, this has been a post for those who know Yoder. But you may be wondering just who Yoder is. I’ll even advertise Nation’s work more by giving you another quote. This one from Nation:
Quote:
John Howard Yoder is largely responsible for the fact that Mennonites are now on the theological map. If the name “Yoder” is mentioned in academic circles in North America—at the annual meetings of the American Academy of Religion or the Society of Christian Ethics—most would know not only that the speaker was referring to John Howard Yoder, but also that this influential theologian was Mennonite and pacifist. In fact, in American academic theology circles, the name of John Yoder is largely synonymous with what it means to be Mennonite. -M. T. Nation on Nation xix
However, don’t think that non-Mennonites should not read Yoder. Actually, Yoder’s largest influence has been with non-Mennonites, and most Mennonites I know know nothing of Yoder and his brilliant theological work. Believe it or not, one of Yoder’s greatest fears was to be pigeon-holed as a “Mennonite thinker.” (This my friends, he was not; or maybe he was since he redefined “Mennonite.”)
So there you go. There’s a little insight into something I’ve been learning. I’ve learned who Yoder is (if such a thing is possible), I’ve learned what happened to him, and I’ve learned why he stayed Mennonite.
Excuse me…I have a question
March 18, 2006 on 9:22 pm | In Archive | No CommentsBlogWatch It is no secret that my viewpoint does not line up very well with a Conservative worldview. In the past year much of my online reading has switched from Conservative pundits to the Anabaptist blogs. I try not to ignore Conservatives, for indeed, I am convinced that most of my life will be struggle to relate to people of different perspectives, especially those called Conservatives. There is one group of such folks that I do read online, however, and that would be the teenager homeschoolers. So, why do I read them when I almost always disagree with their politics and theology? It’s probably because of the age connection, coupled with the fact that I feel an affinity with them. (I was a once a Conservative trying to change the world too, don’t ask me what I am now. Note: I’m trying to paint these guys all with one brush because you can’t.) I really like and identify with their vision to make a difference in our world. I love the way these guys talk about impacting reform, rebelling against the old orders, focusing on community; but my definitions, my assumptions do not line up very well with theirs.
Maybe it’s just the built-in critical part of me coming out, but I’m shuffling my feet wondering if there is room for some helpful critique here. Because I do have some questions, questions about vision, purpose, understandings, that I would like to see addressed. I don’t ever see myself thinking in the same way that many of these fine folks do, in fact, in many ways, I really believe that the way many of them are trained to think runs against the grain of my worldview. I suppose you could say that I have rebelled against a lot of this kind of thinking in the past year. I’m fine with being the sore thumb, but I’m joining this dialogue hoping to be the voice that challenges people to never stop rethinking the very foundations off of which we build. In doing this, I sincerely hope that I am not written off as a crazy Mennonite who can’t see the light. I’m taking you guys seriously, and I’m asking if there is room for my questions.
Some of you are still clueless about what I’m talking about, that is because I have never posted much on this part of the blogosphere. There is a movment underfoot, spearheaded by homeschooled teens, to change our world. Just step over to the Rebelution, or A Side Tracked Focus, or Square Talk Radio, and now Regenerate Our Culture (ROC). I have been watching the past weeks as the teen blogosphere has exploded over the coming of ROC. And with Wednesday’s launch, the new magazine is a reality. I have been watching closely to see what exactly ROC is supposed to be, and now I have some questions to ask.
Quote:
Regenerate Our Culture is an organization with the goal of regenerating our nation’s worldview away from the post-modernism holding it and back to the Christian worldview it was first built on. We believe that America is the most Godly nation on the face of the earth, but it can’t be denied that many in our nation have turned away from God in politics, religion, and their everyday lives. Our vision is to help bring about a positive change in these three important areas, and equip others to do the same. —on Alex King and Tim Sweetman
What is a Godly nation? How is America “the mostly Godly nation on the face of the earth?” Personally, I have a sneaky suspicion that that statement was rethought. The above statement appears on Tim and Alex’s blogs, but on the ROC About Page the phrase, “We believe that America is the most Godly nation on the face of the earth” is missing. Nonetheless, I would like to see a public statement on that.
Quote:
Regenerate Our Culture is an organization dedicated to changing our nation’s worldview from unbiblical to biblical. –Kristin Braun
Quote:
…this organization is here with the intent of changing the worldview of our nation away from the unbiblical post-modernism holding it hostage and back to the Biblical principles it was founded on. –Jake Smith
What Christian Worldview was America founded on? Now, Jake and Kristin used the term “biblical.” I can see that, but being biblical doesn’t mean it must be Christian. I pose the question: What about the founding of America reflects the life or teachings of Christ? Was Jamestown Christ-like? Was Puritan New England Christ-like? Now of course, Puritan New England is a perfect example of “Christian culture” at its worst. It was, after all, supposed to be a recreation of Calvin’s Geneva. And like Geneva, dissenters were not tolerated. Baptists, Anabaptists, and Quakers were either ostracized and humilited, banished, or executed (sometimes all three!). Maybe the Declaration of Independance (the height of Enlightenment logic) was Christian, being penned by our great Christian hero Thomas Jefferson? Maybe you can see Jesus, who dealt with evil by suffering before causing suffering, in the American Rebellion? Maybe you can see the Holy Spirit in the writing of the Constitution? (Can you also see Him in the Church councils on Mary, the saints, and the infallibility of the pope?) Maybe we need to decide what Christian is. I’m looking to be like Jesus, and I don’t look for that in the power systems of this world.
Quote:
In a world like ours, we have a huge problem–too many Christians without a Biblical worldview. It’s scary how many Christians divide their lives into two parts. Their mind is for themselves, and their heart is for God. –Tim Sweetman
I have written on this subject elsewhere, and I like Tim’s statement. (I have argued that this divide is what causes us to love “down inside,” while we advocate war on earth.) But my impression is that this is about more than advocating a Biblical worldview for Christians, but for all people in our society. Will this make more followers of Christ? And do people need to “turn out” like us? Do they have to share our interpretations and approaches? What is most important?
David Ketter, a writer for ROC and a blogger with whom I dialogue somewhat, reviews it this way: “Regenerate Our Culture is committed to bringing our culture back to Christ.” David runs his own youth magazine “featuring Biblically-based writing for the strengthening and renewal of the Christian culture.” So here’s another question: Is there a subtle or significant difference between “strengthening and renewing a Christian culture” and “making our culture Christian?”
In his editorial for the first issue of ROC, Alex King wrote:
Quote:
Our hope and our prayer is that God will use all of us for His glory as we strive to regenerate the culture around us by practical steps. Our main purpose is to submit ourselves to Christ and His will for our lives, allowing Him full reign over us. We want to change our world by sharing Jesus Christ, the author and perfector of our faith.
Does this “hope and prayer,” does this “main purpose” mean that we will come out at the same place politically or theologically? I agree completely with the statement, but not the assumptions that go with it, because I come out at an entirely different place. For example, on the ROC About Page this statement is made:
Quote:
Our political stance is Conservative - we are pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-family. We are also supportive of Republican leaders, President George W. Bush, and the War on Terror.
It is no secret that my support does not line up with Bush or any politician I have ever seen. As a friend and I wrote in a manifesto last summer:
Quote:
We are tired of a Christianity that wants to claim that everything a national government (the US, Israel, or whoever) does is the will of God.We are tired of a Christianity that wants to claim that one man (like Bush) or one organization (like the Republican Party) is God’s way of showing us His will.
We are tired of a Christianity that wants to claim that capitalism is the greatest manifestation of the Holy Spirit since Pentecost.
We are tired of a Christianity that calls weapons of war necessary, while marginalizing plowshares as a truly idealistic worldview.
We are tired of a Christianity that wants to live by the realities of this world, rather than by the reality of the next, the reality of a new creation—which is true faith.
It’s only fair to mention that many of my Conservative blog friends would agree with most of our other attacks on modern Christianity in that statement.
So my biggest question is how does a statement like “changing our world by sharing Jesus Christ” line up with “we are supportive of Republican leaders, President George W. Bush, and the War on Terror?” Or aren’t the two so closely linked? Is it possible that there is room for a person who is devoted to the first statement to not accept the latter?
My questions today remind me of the questions I asked the Harris twins some time ago about the Rebelution and its relationship to the Homeschool Right. I liked Alex’s answer as far as vision and ideal go. I suppose that only time will tell whether that will actually be reality, and if later and more distant critics will be able to see that from what actually materializes. Here’s the quote:
Quote:
At its core, the rebelution is a rebellion against the pseudo- authority of a society in love with the world (1 John 2:15-17), and a return to the lordship of Jesus Christ in all spheres of life — and that vision extends across theological and political differences among Christians.” –Alex Harris of the Rebelution
It is no secret that I am fanatical about Jesus. In fact, my utter devotion to developing that relationship has totally changed my understanding about everything—philosophy, theology, history, and politics, not to mention the impact on daily life. The path this has taken me has led me to question “Christian culture,” the way we see ourselves in the world, and the way we view practically everything. So I hope that when I ask these questions I will not be seen as heretical for doubting the “basics of the faith.” It is my devotion to Christ over Christendom that leads me to do this. Maybe my complex needs to be analyzed, but there is no doubt that the fact that my spiritual ancestors died trying to ask these questions has deeply impacted me.
To think is easy enough. To rethink is harder. To rethink at the most basic levels is bloody hard work. To live our lives centered on one relationship that takes security in no systems, but continues to question and to rethink is inhuman faith, but it is also the most rewarding life of faith in a living God.
Tough Questions
March 7, 2006 on 7:56 am | In Archive | No CommentsReflections/Meditations If a person commits himself to working with an institution, and he changes to the point where he has problems with the purpose or methods of that institution is the most responsible thing for that person to do to leave that institution or to remake it?
What if this institution was never intended to be an institution?
How should a person that is more non-institutional or anti-institutional relate to institutions?
What methods or approaches should be taken?
Is the separatist, divisive, schismatic approach of most Anabaptists the best, the most responsible, the most effective way to deal with this tension?
Spiritual Reality?
February 17, 2006 on 8:27 am | In Archive | No CommentsReflections/Meditations Sometimes I wonder if modern Christianity isn’t too spiritual. I mean to the extent of confining itself. Too often we focus on one good thing to the exclusion of other good things. Does grasping or experiencing spiritual reality without a correlating physical reality do any good? Loving God is not supposed to be purely mental, or purely spiritual, or purely physical. It is meant to encompass all of our lives. Are we fully loving God if we only allow things to affect our spirits? Or only our minds? On the other hand, are we really loving God if we just live in the physical without experiencing God’s working in the mind and spirit?
I guess what got me thinking about this was a discussion in which I was told that the Kingdom of God is spiritual…ethereal. I wonder…are too many things too ethereal to us and not real enough? What do you think? And comments on the Kingdom of God spiritual or physical or both would be greatly appreciated as well, or if you feel so led write a post on it.
The Psalm 2 Conspiracy
February 2, 2006 on 8:31 am | In Archive | No CommentsQuotes/Inspirations From The Message Bible
Why the big noise, nations?
Why the mean plots, peoples?
Earth-leaders push for position,
Demagogues and delegates meet for summit talks,
The God-deniers, the Messiah-defiers:
“Let’s get free of God!
Cast loose from Messiah!”
Heaven-throned God breaks out laughing.
At first he’s amused at their presumption;
Then he gets good and angry.
Furiously, he shuts them up:
“Don’t you know there’s a King in Zion? A coronation banquet
Is spread for him on the holy summit.”
Let me tell you what GOD said next.
He said, “You’re my son,
And today is your birthday.
What do you want? Name it:
Nations as a present? continents as a prize?
You can command them all to dance for you,
Or throw them out with tomorrow’s trash.”
So, rebel-kings, use your heads;
Upstart-judges, learn your lesson:
Worship GOD in adoring embrace,
Celebrate in trembling awe. Kiss Messiah!
Your very lives are in danger, you know;
His anger is about to explode,
But if you make a run for God—you won’t regret it!
Terrorizing Terror
January 21, 2006 on 2:10 am | In Archive | No CommentsNews Yesterday’s White House Report caught my attention. Speaking of fighting terror, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said this:
Quote:
We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business.
I have one question for McClellan. Why are the terrorists in business? And since I don’t think that anybody from the White House reads this blog, anybody can feel free to answer the question.
Is Tolstoy Stupid?
January 17, 2006 on 9:05 am | In Archive | No CommentsQuotes/Inspirations Quote:
Patriotism cannot be good. Why do not people say that egotism can be good, though this may be asserted more easily, because egotism is a natural sentiment, with which a man is born, while patriotism is an unnatural sentiment, which is artificially inoculated in him? -Leo Tolstoy
Does this guy need to grow up? Can’t he understand the difference between personal vice and its corporate aspect of public virture? Read this for more.
The March of Truth–Lowell Style
January 7, 2006 on 4:55 am | In Archive | No CommentsQuotes/Inspirations Then to side with Truth is noble when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ‘t is prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses, while the coward stands aside,
Doubting in his abject spirit, till his Lord is crucified,
And the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.
Count me o’er earth’s chosen heroes,—they were souls that stood alone,
While the men they agonized for hurled the contumelious stone,
Stood serene, and down the future saw the golden beam incline
To the side of perfect justice, mastered by their faith divine,
By one man’s plain truth to manhood and to God’s supreme design.
By the light of burning heretics Christ’s bleeding feet I track,
Toiling up new Calvaries ever with the cross that turns not back,
And these mounts of anguish number how each generation learned
One new word of that grand Credo which in prophet-hearts hath burned
Since the first man stood God-conquered with his face to heaven upturned.
For Humanity sweeps onward: where to-day the martyr stands,
On the morrow crouches Judas with the silver in his hands;
Far in front the cross stands ready and the crackling fagots burn,
While the hooting mob of yesterday in silent awe return
To glean up the scattered ashes into History’s golden urn.
‘T is as easy to be heroes as to sit the idle slaves
Of a legendary virtue carved upon our fathers’ graves,
Worshippers of light ancestral make the present light a crime;—
Was the Mayflower launched by cowards, steered by men behind their time?
Turn those tracks toward Past or Future, that made Plymouth Rock sublime?
They were men of present valor, stalwart old iconoclasts,
Unconvinced by axe or gibbet that all virtue was the Past’s;
But we make their truth our falsehood, thinking that hath made us free,
Hoarding it in mouldy parchments, while our tender spirits flee
The rude grasp of that great Impulse which drove them across the sea.
They have rights who dare maintain them; we are traitors to our sires,
Smothering in their holy ashes Freedom’s new-lit altar-fires;
Shall we make their creed our jailer? Shall we, in our haste to slay
From the tombs of the old prophets steal the funeral lamps away
To light up the martyr-fagots round the prophets of to-day?
New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth;
Lo, before us gleam her camp-fires! we ourselves must Pilgrims be,
Launch our Mayflower, and steer boldly through the desperate winter sea,
Nor attempt the Future’s portal with the Past’s blood-rusted key.
From James Russell Lowell’s “The Present Crisis”
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^