The Presbyterian Church (and many other Christian churches) have a doctrine that stresses "Grace" over "Works". At the risk of oversimplifying, the gist is that we get into Heaven based on God's Grace- through Jesus dying on the Cross- and not by any works that we do.
I often wonder if the stress on Grace to the utter ignoring of works leads some to discount works as just an afterthought or even as useless. Some people take the extreme and think that if they believe in Jesus that they don't need to worry about anything. Joel Osteen preaches that God wanted us to be happy and successful.
Yet I wonder if this builds complacency. As a relatively blessed person in the world- especially one born in America to a relatively well-off family, I have been given many things without working to get them. I can only conclude that these were gifts to me- and subsequently that I should do something to deserve them. In short, if I waste these gifts, it won't go over so well in the Afterlife.
That isn't based on any Biblical verse or church dogma- it is just a feeling I have. I figure that we are here for a purpose- and that purpose has to be a little more complicated than just to see who accepts Jesus or not as their savior. The concepts in that belief- in my opinion: unselfishness and humbleness- are probably the most important, but along with that I really think that we are also here to determine if you deserve what you started with. I'm not sure why or how- but I just know in my heart that if I don't use the gifts God has given me it won't be a good thing.
1) is our purpose here "only" to see if we accept Jesus?
2) what is the purpose of the Afterlife?
3) what will the Afterlife be composed of?
4) was Revelations just written in the style of the day?
5) what place do "works" have in faith?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Losing our religion?
In case you've missed it, the news is full of stories these days about the death of religion- or at least of Protestantism.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/is-religion-los.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101859925
What can we do to stop this trend- or should we? The first story is written by a religious professor who notes that today's youth do not want a religion that makes any moral judgments- everyone is good and the only goal is happiness- the sooner the better.
This has to remind some of Gomorrah. Are we there yet? Are we worse? Or are things much the same as they always have been? Is there no progress for humanity?
Another interesting trend the papers note are the growth in American-made religions like Scientology and Mormonism.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/is-religion-los.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101859925
What can we do to stop this trend- or should we? The first story is written by a religious professor who notes that today's youth do not want a religion that makes any moral judgments- everyone is good and the only goal is happiness- the sooner the better.
This has to remind some of Gomorrah. Are we there yet? Are we worse? Or are things much the same as they always have been? Is there no progress for humanity?
Another interesting trend the papers note are the growth in American-made religions like Scientology and Mormonism.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Design and questioning assumptions: How relevant is it to Faith?
The U.S. Army is going more and more towards the concept of "Design" everyday. At the heart of Design is critical thinking, systems thinking, complexity theory, and chaos theory- to name just a few of the concepts. It is fundamentally about a new way of thinking, a new way of approaching problems, life, and how we process information. It has the potential to fundamentally change the way the Army does things- from the top on down.
Some guys resist the new ideas- as many are resistant to change. Design isn't something easily understood or grasped. I probably could attempt another ten pages of explanation and probably wouldn't get it right. Suffice it to say that Design attempts to have people take themselves out of their biased perceptive selves and attempt to redefine things in terms of other peoples' perspectives. This causes a person to suspend his/her own beliefs and assumptions in order to better understand what others may be perceiving things. For one example, in the Yom Kippur War both the Israelis and the Egyptians declared victory. How could that be? Both defined victory differently. Without that fundamental understanding, it would arguably be harder for each to capitalize on their "win".
Regardless of how one views this new "holistic" way of thinking- it is coming, like it or not. Many Charter Schools are turning towards Holistic approaches to math and other problem-solving subjects. The Army officer's Basic courses are starting to throw out the old linear ways of learning and turning to more Design-type approaches. I submit that if people in their 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's don't educate themselves in Design- they may not be able to communicate much longer with younger people.
Will this effect churches? Some in the Army think so. By forcing people to practice to see things differently, question assumptions, and re-assemble fundamental worldviews, it is hard not to apply the same concepts to one's fundamental beliefs- both in one's country and one's religion. Is that a bad thing? Should church's run and hide from these concepts, or should they welcome the challenge? As with everything there is risk- risk that some believers will lose their faith or stop coming to church. But, the gains could be astronomical. Church's the embrace these concepts and challenge their own parishioners to learn all they can about Design and apply it to their own faith could build a very strong and intelligent church body. It could even have the potential to turn the recent deterioration around for the Protestant faith.
1) Is the church in danger of becoming irrelevant?
2) Is it better for the Christian religion to turn back to its roots- and become the "outcasts" of society?
3) Does Design have the potential to turn some away from the faith?
4) What is the matter with questioning fundamental assumptions- and coming to the conclusion that "Absolute Truth" isn't something that Humans can know?
5) What things MUST Christians accept on faith- regardless of the assumptions behind them?
6) Can Christians KNOW any Absolute Truths? How?
Some guys resist the new ideas- as many are resistant to change. Design isn't something easily understood or grasped. I probably could attempt another ten pages of explanation and probably wouldn't get it right. Suffice it to say that Design attempts to have people take themselves out of their biased perceptive selves and attempt to redefine things in terms of other peoples' perspectives. This causes a person to suspend his/her own beliefs and assumptions in order to better understand what others may be perceiving things. For one example, in the Yom Kippur War both the Israelis and the Egyptians declared victory. How could that be? Both defined victory differently. Without that fundamental understanding, it would arguably be harder for each to capitalize on their "win".
Regardless of how one views this new "holistic" way of thinking- it is coming, like it or not. Many Charter Schools are turning towards Holistic approaches to math and other problem-solving subjects. The Army officer's Basic courses are starting to throw out the old linear ways of learning and turning to more Design-type approaches. I submit that if people in their 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's don't educate themselves in Design- they may not be able to communicate much longer with younger people.
Will this effect churches? Some in the Army think so. By forcing people to practice to see things differently, question assumptions, and re-assemble fundamental worldviews, it is hard not to apply the same concepts to one's fundamental beliefs- both in one's country and one's religion. Is that a bad thing? Should church's run and hide from these concepts, or should they welcome the challenge? As with everything there is risk- risk that some believers will lose their faith or stop coming to church. But, the gains could be astronomical. Church's the embrace these concepts and challenge their own parishioners to learn all they can about Design and apply it to their own faith could build a very strong and intelligent church body. It could even have the potential to turn the recent deterioration around for the Protestant faith.
1) Is the church in danger of becoming irrelevant?
2) Is it better for the Christian religion to turn back to its roots- and become the "outcasts" of society?
3) Does Design have the potential to turn some away from the faith?
4) What is the matter with questioning fundamental assumptions- and coming to the conclusion that "Absolute Truth" isn't something that Humans can know?
5) What things MUST Christians accept on faith- regardless of the assumptions behind them?
6) Can Christians KNOW any Absolute Truths? How?
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Church and Politics
I read with interest recently the article on bishops criticizing the appointment of Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services (http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1086063.html). The line that got me thinking was the priest's comment that if he didn't criticize her, no-one would and that even Jesus was criticized for doing what he thought was right.
But did Jesus ever confront the politicians of the day? I don't remember him criticizing Caesar or saying that the local governor was corrupt and shouldn't support infanticide. I don't remember him saying that the local centurions should be more lenient on Jews. In fact, the only group I remember Jesus being critical of was the religious leaders of the day. He admonished them for thinking that they knew God. I read that as a warning to all: be modest when it comes to knowledge of God: we as humans can't begin to fathom the intricacies of the Creator, Holy Spirit, and Son.
Some would say that Jesus didn't operate in a world where Christianity was the de facto state religion- and that to compare what he would do today is to compare apples and oranges. I would disagree. I think Jesus was more concerned with something greater than Earthly politics: he was concerned with our souls. When he did talk about the government it was to say there was a separation and that they should adher to that delineation. 'Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and Give unto God what is God's' I take as saying that politics has to do with Earthly needs and wants and what God is about is much greater and much more spiritual.
So, in conclusion I would think that Jesus wouldn't bother with choosing a political party, picking platforms, or arguing over abortion, prayer in school, or stem cells. I think he would tell the religious leaders they don't understand God. And I think he'd tell everyone: Love God over all else and love your neighbor. And be more modest.
But did Jesus ever confront the politicians of the day? I don't remember him criticizing Caesar or saying that the local governor was corrupt and shouldn't support infanticide. I don't remember him saying that the local centurions should be more lenient on Jews. In fact, the only group I remember Jesus being critical of was the religious leaders of the day. He admonished them for thinking that they knew God. I read that as a warning to all: be modest when it comes to knowledge of God: we as humans can't begin to fathom the intricacies of the Creator, Holy Spirit, and Son.
Some would say that Jesus didn't operate in a world where Christianity was the de facto state religion- and that to compare what he would do today is to compare apples and oranges. I would disagree. I think Jesus was more concerned with something greater than Earthly politics: he was concerned with our souls. When he did talk about the government it was to say there was a separation and that they should adher to that delineation. 'Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and Give unto God what is God's' I take as saying that politics has to do with Earthly needs and wants and what God is about is much greater and much more spiritual.
So, in conclusion I would think that Jesus wouldn't bother with choosing a political party, picking platforms, or arguing over abortion, prayer in school, or stem cells. I think he would tell the religious leaders they don't understand God. And I think he'd tell everyone: Love God over all else and love your neighbor. And be more modest.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Our bodies are temples?
I remember hearing once that our bodies are temples and thus we shouldn't eat bad food or avoid working out. As an avid Crossfitter (www.crossfit.com), I think I have the second one covered, but I could probably eat better. There is nothing better-tasting in my opinion than a double Whopper with cheese from Burger King and some fries from MacDonald's (I know- I have to go to two places to get a good meal...).
But, what of the idea that we should take care of our bodies for the Lord by working out and eating healthy? I think there might be something to that, but not sure of the principle behind it.
But, what of the idea that we should take care of our bodies for the Lord by working out and eating healthy? I think there might be something to that, but not sure of the principle behind it.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Sunday thought: who would Jesus hang out with today?
While Ron, our pastor, read the lesson today on Peter pulling Jesus aside and telling him he probably shouldn't talk about going to Jerusalem and getting killed, I couldn't help but think about who Jesus would hang out with and who would he not get along with if he came to the U.S. today.
Based on the stories in the Gospels, I'd think it would probably go something like this:
- He would probably have some contact with a prophet or preacher who would be in trouble with the law/government (aka John the Baptizer)
- He would get men to leave their family businesses and learn to recruit others (fishers of men)
- He would then go to public places and start preaching and he would heal mentally ill people and those with physical afflictions
- He would become so popular that huge crowds would congregate wherever he went
- As he preached and healed, preachers from all denominations of Christendom would find something about him that they thought contradicted the Bible and would start to criticize him.
- He would then be "caught" eating dinner with prostitutes, bankers, porn producers, movie moguls, Pro-Choicers, and lawyers. Elders, ministers, and deacons from all the great faiths would condemn him for doing so. He would say that he didn't come for the righteous- for they don't need salvation.
- He would then be photographed by a cell phone camera playing golf on a Sunday morning with OJ Simpson. Even Joel Osteen and his kind would now say this is obviously not the Christ. Jesus would be shown on a Youtube video telling his detractors that Sunday was made for man, not man for Sunday.
- He would then be seen by people giving comfort to a woman in a Planned Parenthood office. Leaders of many faiths would then immediately leave and plot against him- some seeking assasination, others seeking remedy through the courts.
- Jesus would be overheard warning people to beware of contemporary preacher's and politician's words. This would be touted in the papers as treason and heresy and inflame both sides of the political aisle. Democrats and Republicans would join religious leaders in unanimously condemning him.
- Jesus would then tell his followers that he was to be rebuked by the elders of the church, preachers of the chief denominations, judges of the legal system, and political chieftains. His top follower would tell him not to go against the powers that be- to which he would reply, "Satan, get away from me."
- Jesus would then be engaged in a series of debates with lawyers, judges, politicians, and religious leaders. After each debate each group would grow more fearful of his popularity with the people and their subsequent loss of power.
We all know how it ends in the New Testament. Would this happen to him today too? Or would he hang out with Middle and Upper-Class Americans, reveling in our contemporary issues? He came to Earth to the Jews: an occupied people. If He came back now would he hang out with the modern-day Roman Imperial citizenry?
Based on the stories in the Gospels, I'd think it would probably go something like this:
- He would probably have some contact with a prophet or preacher who would be in trouble with the law/government (aka John the Baptizer)
- He would get men to leave their family businesses and learn to recruit others (fishers of men)
- He would then go to public places and start preaching and he would heal mentally ill people and those with physical afflictions
- He would become so popular that huge crowds would congregate wherever he went
- As he preached and healed, preachers from all denominations of Christendom would find something about him that they thought contradicted the Bible and would start to criticize him.
- He would then be "caught" eating dinner with prostitutes, bankers, porn producers, movie moguls, Pro-Choicers, and lawyers. Elders, ministers, and deacons from all the great faiths would condemn him for doing so. He would say that he didn't come for the righteous- for they don't need salvation.
- He would then be photographed by a cell phone camera playing golf on a Sunday morning with OJ Simpson. Even Joel Osteen and his kind would now say this is obviously not the Christ. Jesus would be shown on a Youtube video telling his detractors that Sunday was made for man, not man for Sunday.
- He would then be seen by people giving comfort to a woman in a Planned Parenthood office. Leaders of many faiths would then immediately leave and plot against him- some seeking assasination, others seeking remedy through the courts.
- Jesus would be overheard warning people to beware of contemporary preacher's and politician's words. This would be touted in the papers as treason and heresy and inflame both sides of the political aisle. Democrats and Republicans would join religious leaders in unanimously condemning him.
- Jesus would then tell his followers that he was to be rebuked by the elders of the church, preachers of the chief denominations, judges of the legal system, and political chieftains. His top follower would tell him not to go against the powers that be- to which he would reply, "Satan, get away from me."
- Jesus would then be engaged in a series of debates with lawyers, judges, politicians, and religious leaders. After each debate each group would grow more fearful of his popularity with the people and their subsequent loss of power.
We all know how it ends in the New Testament. Would this happen to him today too? Or would he hang out with Middle and Upper-Class Americans, reveling in our contemporary issues? He came to Earth to the Jews: an occupied people. If He came back now would he hang out with the modern-day Roman Imperial citizenry?
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Today's thought: failure
An article in today's KC Star http://www.kansascity.com/238/story/1071370.html led me to think about failure with respect to our faith. Do we allow people to fail?
Sure, I first thought- we sin all the time and talk about it ad-nauseum. Whole sermons are devoted to sinning. One preacher even told me to "sin boldly".
What I'm not so sure of, however, is if we encourage people to "fail" in their beliefs. In other words, we seem to be bounded by the dogma of a "consensus view" of our faith. It is assumed we believe word-for-word the Apostle's Creed- and yet how many people have actually read (as opposed to saying it in unison) it and understand what they are saying (or, have read the historical record behind the development of it)?
Most people I go to church with probably don't believe in aliens, ghosts, or vampires. But they supposedly have no problem believing someone walked on water, turned water into wine, and was raised from the dead. Is all that just something you accept because it's been repeated so many times you just accept it based on familiarity? Come on now- be honest- if any of you heard today that someone walked on water or healed a blind person- wouldn't you immediately discredit the story?
Which brings me back to failure. If, as the article suggests, failure helps us learn, then I think it is imperative that we allow failure within the church. Failure in the sense of questioning those things that we think everyone is supposed to believe. Failure in the sense of "heretical" ideas. Failure in the sense of going down the wrong path.
Someone once spoke to me of a concern for going "too close to the devil" with the Red Cell concept. I have thought a long time about that. To me, a fear of going too close to the devil implies a weakness of faith. If I am afraid the devil will ultimately win me over because I am investigating my faith, then that would imply that Jesus has a hard time winning out over the devil. I don't accept that line of reasoning. I think the more you test your faith, the stronger it will be. Conversely, if all you do is repeat the scripture when prompted to in church and don't test yourself with other ideas, when you are truly tested you may find yourself wanting.
I have heard preachers assume in their sermons that people take Biblical "Truths" as fact, and yet I'm not so sure most people have investigated these "facts" in any deeper way than when they were first introduced to them as children. I know I haven't. I would encourage, instead, preachers to ask the questions of their congregants. Instead of assuming they believe- ask them what they believe. Tell them how some of the things we believe in came to pass (Like the Council of Nicea, the Apostle's Creed, and how books of the Bible came to be accepted).
Don't be afraid of people questioning details based on a search for knowledge. Don't be afraid of people going down the wrong paths. Don't be afraid of people "getting closer to the devil". If what we believe in is true- they should find their way back eventually. And along with the failures they will encounter as they go down different paths- they will come out stronger.
Sure, I first thought- we sin all the time and talk about it ad-nauseum. Whole sermons are devoted to sinning. One preacher even told me to "sin boldly".
What I'm not so sure of, however, is if we encourage people to "fail" in their beliefs. In other words, we seem to be bounded by the dogma of a "consensus view" of our faith. It is assumed we believe word-for-word the Apostle's Creed- and yet how many people have actually read (as opposed to saying it in unison) it and understand what they are saying (or, have read the historical record behind the development of it)?
Most people I go to church with probably don't believe in aliens, ghosts, or vampires. But they supposedly have no problem believing someone walked on water, turned water into wine, and was raised from the dead. Is all that just something you accept because it's been repeated so many times you just accept it based on familiarity? Come on now- be honest- if any of you heard today that someone walked on water or healed a blind person- wouldn't you immediately discredit the story?
Which brings me back to failure. If, as the article suggests, failure helps us learn, then I think it is imperative that we allow failure within the church. Failure in the sense of questioning those things that we think everyone is supposed to believe. Failure in the sense of "heretical" ideas. Failure in the sense of going down the wrong path.
Someone once spoke to me of a concern for going "too close to the devil" with the Red Cell concept. I have thought a long time about that. To me, a fear of going too close to the devil implies a weakness of faith. If I am afraid the devil will ultimately win me over because I am investigating my faith, then that would imply that Jesus has a hard time winning out over the devil. I don't accept that line of reasoning. I think the more you test your faith, the stronger it will be. Conversely, if all you do is repeat the scripture when prompted to in church and don't test yourself with other ideas, when you are truly tested you may find yourself wanting.
I have heard preachers assume in their sermons that people take Biblical "Truths" as fact, and yet I'm not so sure most people have investigated these "facts" in any deeper way than when they were first introduced to them as children. I know I haven't. I would encourage, instead, preachers to ask the questions of their congregants. Instead of assuming they believe- ask them what they believe. Tell them how some of the things we believe in came to pass (Like the Council of Nicea, the Apostle's Creed, and how books of the Bible came to be accepted).
Don't be afraid of people questioning details based on a search for knowledge. Don't be afraid of people going down the wrong paths. Don't be afraid of people "getting closer to the devil". If what we believe in is true- they should find their way back eventually. And along with the failures they will encounter as they go down different paths- they will come out stronger.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Who was Melchizedek?
Interesting guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek
From Hebrews 7:
"...He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever..."
I had never heard of him- which surprised me. There seems to be several different ideas about who he was/what he was. Even some differing ideas in the Jewish, Gnostic, and other traditions.
Bottom line is that he seems to have been some sort of King of "Salem" and "priest of the Most High". He is mentioned twice in the Old Testament and then mentioned again in Hebrews as being some sort of foundation for a priesthood that must have existed prior to the Aaronic preisthood and that later welcomed Jesus to its ranks:
Hebrews 6: "...where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."
Later, in Hebrews 7 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=hebrews+7&version1=47): "...He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace."
So, it would seem that there was a Most-High Priest who was also a King (of possibly Jerusalem?) who received a tithe from Abraham and who resembled Jesus (he seemed to have appeared on the Earth without human parents, didn't die, and is still a priest today), and who had a "tradition" so important that Jesus followed in it.
Some translations seem to make the case that it was a political play to connect Jesus to a priestly line- because the tribe of Judah had no "priests" like Levi, etc. Similar to connecting Jesus to David's line (and, interestingly- David is connected to Melchizedek in perhaps a similar way in Psalms).
Any thoughts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek
From Hebrews 7:
"...He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever..."
I had never heard of him- which surprised me. There seems to be several different ideas about who he was/what he was. Even some differing ideas in the Jewish, Gnostic, and other traditions.
Bottom line is that he seems to have been some sort of King of "Salem" and "priest of the Most High". He is mentioned twice in the Old Testament and then mentioned again in Hebrews as being some sort of foundation for a priesthood that must have existed prior to the Aaronic preisthood and that later welcomed Jesus to its ranks:
Hebrews 6: "...where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."
Later, in Hebrews 7 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=hebrews+7&version1=47): "...He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace."
So, it would seem that there was a Most-High Priest who was also a King (of possibly Jerusalem?) who received a tithe from Abraham and who resembled Jesus (he seemed to have appeared on the Earth without human parents, didn't die, and is still a priest today), and who had a "tradition" so important that Jesus followed in it.
Some translations seem to make the case that it was a political play to connect Jesus to a priestly line- because the tribe of Judah had no "priests" like Levi, etc. Similar to connecting Jesus to David's line (and, interestingly- David is connected to Melchizedek in perhaps a similar way in Psalms).
Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
