Just another weblog
Greetings, all. I just want you to know that I’ll be leaving town Dec. 22 for the holidays. I’ll be checking the blog occasionally from the in-laws, but will be on the road from Dec. 26 through Jan. 1, then on Jan. 2 will be heading down to Mexico. I’ll be back in town Jan. 17.
Enjoy the blog while I’m gone, and try not to get me into trouble.
If you’re interested in praying for me, the phrase God has given me for this trip is that “he would be my guide”.
Let’s say we all agree that there is a battle for souls going on, there is a struggle against principalities, there is a real Devil and we are engaged in a struggle- given.
But having said as much, do we fight with logic, reason, debate skill, erudition, point/counterpoint jousting, or is there another way? If we identify as “the people who are always at odds with the people who are not them” how are we differnent than the Amish?
And is that so bad? Amish folk are what they are, they don’t try to live in 2 worlds. But are they salt and light?
Let’s consider the current “Big Three”- Abortion, Evolution, Homosexuality (going alphabetically, so as to show no preference). Will anyone be debated from one camp into another? And if that is not the only way to go, what are some other ways?
Tim Schmoyer has an article discussing how a Christian should approach online gaming as a potential mission field. His suggestion is not to form a Christian group, but instead to join an existing group and be a Christian in it.
This is precisely the opposite of some of the extractional thinking we’re seeing. The church down the road advertises on their web site that soon they’ll be offering a “24/7 Christian Experience”. You’ll be able to work out, eat, do homework, play basketball and video games, apparently without ever meeting a non-Christian! I’m not at all sure this is what Jesus had in mind.
I know what you’re thinking! I’m the pot calling the kettle black because I homeschool! Let me explain the difference. The primary (and overwhelming) reason for us to homeschool is to spend more time with our children. Sure, there are other reasons too, but our goal is build our relationships with our children. We anticipate that the end result will be children who are properly prepared to engage with the world, not to find ways to avoid it. The kinds of relationships one can build at the gym, on the basketball court, at a cafe or the library are the very ones I believe Jesus wants us to cultivate, once we are equipped.
I spent several formative years associating mostly with like-minded believers, both at work and play. This helped me develop some (I hope) “Jesus lenses” through which I can view life around me. It prepared me for spending the rest of my life engaging the world, not running from it.
Of course, my Jesus lenses occasionally get fogged up, so I’m counting on my brothers and sisters to keep me honest.
I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about how my cultural glasses affect my reading of the Bible. I’ve only just now started wondering how Paul’s cultural glasses affected his writing of it.
Folks (like McLaren) insist that it is impossible to view the Bible apart from one’s culture. It’s not that I can’t see the forest for the trees, it’s that the trees are a very part of me. Ok, so did Paul have the same problem? Was he unduly influenced by his culture, or did he somehow manage to free himself from that which traps the rest of us?
If I say Paul was influenced by his culture, then that opens the Bible up to dramatic new interpretations. If I say he wasn’t influenced by culture, then I’m saying it is perhaps possible for ME not to be influenced either.
Or do we say that Paul was an exceptional case, that he was divinely inspired and thus able to see the kingdom of God without distortion — but we are unable to do so? I must say, this is not a conclusion I like. I would much rather have something to aim for, than settle for culture-colored glasses.
I was surprised to read that some columnists (like this one) are complaining that some churches are choosing not to have services on Christmas day. Even (gasp!) Willow Creek has decided not to open the doors on Christmas. What’s the big deal?
The columnist I linked to says that not having church on Christmas means: 1.) We love things more than we love Jesus. 2.) The church is compromising. 3.) The church is hypocritical. 4.) Non-christians think we are compromising and hypocritical. 5.) The family has become more important than Jesus.
All this because of skipping one service. This leads me to ask the question, what is the purpose of a church service, anyway? According to this guy, we go to show the world that we are self-sacrificing world-haters who would rather attend church than see our families. In his defense, he also says that a church service is an opportunity to “gather with God’s people for worship.” A noble endeavor, of course, but is that it?
To me, it depends on whether the purpose of Christianity is to facilitate church services, or whether the purpose of church services is to facilitate Christianity. I fall into the latter camp. I attend church for the same reason I take my car to the gas station — it’s an opportunity to fuel up. I gain spiritual energy through fellowship and corporate worship, helping me to live the rest of the week as Jesus would have me do. Missing one week doesn’t drain my tank, and some services (you’ve been to them, too) don’t exactly overflow the tank, either.
I didn’t decide to follow Jesus so that I can attend church services. I attend services to help me follow Jesus. Church is not what we do on Sunday morning. Church is when we talk with our friends, when we gather with our families, when we live out our Christian faith in our everyday lives. I don’t know about you, but I definitely will be “attending church” on Christmas.