03.13.12

Sex and Lies

Posted in Reflections at 10:31

I read an article the other day that made me sick. But not for the reasons it might have made other people sick. It made me sick because it pretended to be different from the Evangelical mainstream, pretended to take a good, hard look at the facts and make a brutally honest assessment of the situation. But instead it lied, just like the majority of the Evangelical church, so it could conclude by reaffirming the status quo it admitted was unreasonable.

This is the epitome of bad faith.

If the status quo – viz, abstinence from sex until marriage – is unreasonable in our current cultural context, a new understanding of chastity is required. What is acceptable and what isn’t? What does it mean to be chaste in 21st century America? How can we cast off the longstanding tradition of what it means to be chaste while maintaining the crux of chastity itself?

If it is not unreasonable, if it truly is possible for the majority of twenty-something Christians to abstain from sex until getting married at an average age of 28.4 for men and 26.6 for women1, a better explanation is required. If God created us as sexual beings – a trait that can’t simply be turned off when it’s inconvenient – what form of expression of that sexual nature is appropriate for unmarried twenty-somethings? Why is the requirement of head coverings for women specific to one culture and the prohibition of fornication universal? If 80% of unmarried Evangelicals between 18 and 29 have had sex2, or if 80% of unmarried, church-going, conservative Protestants who are currently dating someone are having sex3, why? Do the believe it’s wrong and do it anyway, or do they not think it’s wrong? Is there a realistic solution? Preaching abstinence or getting married younger don’t work since the former appears to be ineffective and the later is not possible for many.

The Evangelical church as a whole doesn’t seem to have room for dissenting voices. A friend of mine wrote a blog post about this recently. But I think dissenting voices are exactly what are called for here. Open, honest, two-way dialogue.

That’s why I feel it’s really important that this documentary be made. It’s a chance for both sides of the debate to speak. A chance to think for yourself instead of having a pastor or leader think for you. If you support balanced dialogue on this issue, please consider giving them $5 to help make it happen. Or $500. But do it soon, they’re down to the last few days. If they don’t reach their goal, they won’t get any money at all.

I’ll leave you with a bit of scripture that reminds me of most Evangelical leaders’ teaching on this issue. It’s Jesus speaking about the Pharisees:

But be careful about following them. They talk a good line, but they don’t live it. They don’t take it into their hearts and live it out in their behavior. It’s all spit-and-polish veneer.

Instead of giving you God’s Law as food and drink by which you can banquet on God, they package it in bundles of rules, loading you down like pack animals. They seem to take pleasure in watching you stagger under these loads, and wouldn’t think of lifting a finger to help.

Matthew 23 (The Message)

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_at_first_marriage#Americas
  2. http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/relationship/features/28337-the-secret-sexual-revolution
  3. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/august/16.22.html

11.05.09

Rules

Posted in Reflections at 11:43

He never demands that we follow the rules. He asks, in a whisper, if we will surrender again and again to Him, until in Him we are conformed to a Way of Love to which the rules bear only the meanest resemblance.

01.26.09

Why I Am Not Charismatic

Posted in Reflections at 23:50

I think I probably still believe in everything the Charismatic church teaches. While much of the Church catholic1 suffers under a brand of philosophical materialism2 that impoverishes their view of God and man alike, this cannot be said of the Charismatic church. There is another thing the Charismatic church has gotten right, and perhaps it’s the only thing that needs to be gotten right: the primacy of spiritual communion with God. This is my core conviction, which has led me into, and out of the Charismatic church.

I have two additional convictions, however, that deprecate rather than recommend, the Charismatic church to me:

First, I believe that God is big. I very much dislike—I will even use the word despise—the careless attribution of such ambiguous adjectives3 to God, so I will elaborate. As humans, we very much like drawing sharp lines of distinction. We assimilate knowledge by defining, comparing, contrasting, placing in neat categories everything we encounter. God defies and defeats these processes—He cannot be known about but only known.

God has shattered the categories I learned in the Charismatic church. A man raised from the dead or made to see by the power of God is a miracle. But so is a newborn baby. And so is the sun rising day after day. The categories of prophecy and revival and gifting, have been overwhelmed and destroyed and I am left only with the conviction that God is active in this world to an extent I cannot comprehend, and in ways I cannot imagine.

When I pray, I do so believing that God answers prayer, and that it would be foolish for me to tell Him how to do so. When I listen for the voice of God, I know He will speak—in a still small voice, through my friends or my circumstances, through a talking ass, or in some way I’ve yet to experience or imagine. And when I fail to listen, I know He will patiently wait for and with me. I am in love with and in awe of a God who is found in and yet is bigger than speaking in tongues or being slain in the Spirit or delivered of demons.

Second, I believe that we as Christians, stand in the context of the Church catholic—the universal Church; the past, present, and future; the living and the dead. The Charismatic Church, as a cult4, has ignored this to their detriment. They fail to realise that God has always given Himself and His gifts to those who love and seek Him—be they borderline-heretical sects like the Montanists, Roman Catholic ascetics like the Carmelites, fornicating bumpkins like those at the camp meetings of the Second Great Awakening, Hippies like the Jesus People, or modern day Charismatics. Many Charismatic pastors fail to study Theology and Church history, or, having studied them, do not teach them, thinking their parishioners will find them uninteresting or irrelevant.

Not only have they failed to learn about or acknowledge what God has done in the world between the book of Acts and and Azusa Street—they have also ignored much of what He has done since then. Any move of God that doesn’t involve religious enthusiasm5 fails to qualify as revival and is cast aside.

God has moved, is moving, and will move in ways that escape our observation or interest, in ways that break our paradigms, and in ways that flat out offend us. I don’t want to miss anything God is doing.

  1. In this context, ‘catholic’ with a little ‘c’ means universal, not Roman Catholic.
  2. This refers to denial or minimization of spiritual realities, not the pursuit of material wealth
  3. We should be very careful what we say about God.
  4. Cult, in this context is a technical term for a religious group. I’m not saying the Charismatic church is a cult in the profane sense of the word
  5. Another technical term describing an intensified emotional state brought about either by the Holy Spirit or by the group dynamics of certain religious activities. Charismatic stuff.

01.02.09

It’s Still Christmas

Posted in Reflections at 04:24

It’s January first and there’s a wreath on my door.

I feel like I’ve been sort of cheated. American culture tells us that once the presents are opened, Christmas is over. Oh sure, nobody takes their tree down on the 26th. But they start looking at it as a large visible reminder of a chore to be done. We look at the languishing remains of the Christmas sweets and think ‘Oh God, make it stop.’ Racks of Christmas things in stores become sparse and disorganised as they bear signs proclaiming progressively increasing discounts. Christmas music is unequivocally shunned. And our minds wander toward the New Year. Christmas is dead and gone.

But it’s still Christmas! Christmas day is the first of twelve days of Christmas. It should be the beginning, not the end of the celebration of of the mystery of the Incarnation, of the rejoicing in everything we longingly hoped for in the season of Advent. It’s the Feast of the Already following the Fast for the Not Yet. Christmas isn’t over until Epiphany, the celebration of visit of the Magi (Jan 6th).

For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

–Handel’s Messiah “For Unto Us a Child is Born” (quoting Isaiah 9:6). Handel’s Messiah is absolutely amazing, by the way.

So have a merry Christmas.

10.22.07

The Cake is a Lie

Posted in Reflections at 11:18

My roommates are into computer games. The phrase “the cake is a lie” has been borrowed from one of their games and used as an inside joke of sorts in our apartment.

The other day I was thinking. <insert standard joke here> It is reasonably obvious that the middle class American lifestyle is dependent on the poverty of the “third world” in numerous ways. Yet we westerners have this funny notion of ending world poverty. I think that’s an admirable goal. The problem (or one of an endless slew of problems) is, even if we can scrape together enough cash to develop the economies of every nation on earth to a point where most people live like western middle class folks (most, mind you–there would still be some very wealthy in every nation, and some poor, but it would be a much less cruel poverty.) Even if we could do that, doing so would destroy the planet. Whether or not you believe in global warming, think about this: if 6.6 billion people ate meat every day, how many cows would have to be raised to feed them? How many acres, how much feed grain and water would those cows use? How many more cows would we have to have on top of that to give 6.6 billion people the milk and dairy products they need? How many sheep, goats, chickens, ducks, rabbits… How many acres of rice, wheat, corn, barley, oats, etc.? How many pounds of fresh produce? How much water would it take to grow all that? How much water would it take to complete their showers, flush their toilets? How much gas would it take to fuel their cars, boats, trucks, planes… How much steel, concrete,wood, copper, aluminum, plastic and glass would it take to build their homes and package their food? How much more garbage and waste water and smoke would be generated by their consumption? How much more electricity would be needed to charge their cell phones and iPods, run their computers and light their houses? I haven’t even scratched the surface.

The point is, in order to bring any semblance of equality to standards of living around the world, simply raising standards for the poor is not enough. We need to lower our own standards of living. Maybe our wealth isn’t helping us anyway. Maybe constant stimulation and entertainment is only burying an underlying discontent that’s gnawing at our souls. What is needed is an approach of simplicity and efficiency that addresses rather than medicates its pain. It’s possible to have less and be happier. Less is more. The cake is a lie.

05.15.07

Two Models of Interpersonal Healing

Posted in Reflections at 16:10

Time as Healing

This model views hurts in a relationship as parallel to physical wounds. The correct approach to dealing with such wounds is to cover the wound and allow time to heal it. To dwell on these hurts, or try to fix them, risks infection or aggravation, thus delaying the healing process.

Truth as Healing

This model views hurts as misunderstandings. The correct approach, therefore, in dealing with such wounds is to clear up the misunderstandings. When each person understands what the other meant, the conflict is resolved. To avoid dealing with the misunderstanding, therefore, is to prevent proper healing of a wound, much like allowing a bone to heal without setting it correctly.

The Disconnect

Obviously, these two models conflict in a certain way. Someone using the time model would be completely exasperated by a person using the other model because of their insistence on making a bigger deal than necessary. Talking about who said what and what they really meant can only make the wound worse and prolong the pain of the injury. Even if she understood the other’s perspective, she might say, “Don’t you think our friendship is strong enough that we can both get over this and move on?”

Likewise, the ‘misunderstanding model’ user would be exasperated by the ‘time model’ user’s ignoring the problem. Letting the issue go undiscussed would create room for potential future conflict about the same topic. Even if he understood the other’s perspective, he might say, “Don’t you think we should deal with this while it already hurts so we don’t have to re-break the bone and re-set it later?”

05.02.07

Grass Stains

Posted in Reflections at 23:09

The other evening I got a grass stain on the knee of my jeans.

The weather’s been warming up again and the apartment was rather stuffy. I walked out into the twilight and was somehow made free by the cool, fresh air. I wish I had spent more time outside this year. Lord knows I’ve spent far too many hours in front of this computer screen.

I walked back inside, and on expressing my sentiments to my roommates, Erik suggested a game of catch. He grabbed the slightly limp football and we faced off in the grassy courtyard. Somehow throwing that football, being outside, falling and staining my pants relieved a bit of the deadness and stress this year has brought.

06.12.06

Trinity Sunday—Year B

Posted in lectionary, Reflections, scripture at 13:44

  • Deuteronomy 4:32-34, 39-40
  • Psalm 33:4-22
  • Romans 8:14-17
  • Matthew 28:16-20

In God are three ‘persons’, each uncreated, coequal, coeternal, sharing one ‘essence’.

What I really found amazing about this week’s text, though, was the revelation of His character.  He is a God that chooses to be in relationship with us.  Incredible.

06.04.06

Pentecost Sunday—Year B

Posted in lectionary, Reflections, scripture at 22:18

  • Acts 2:1-21
  • Psalm 104:1-34
  • 1 Corinthians 12:3-7, 12-13
  • John 20:19-23

Is it perhaps akin to the heresy of Deism to presume that the burning of the sun, the courses of the planets, the falling of rain, the life cycle of man and beast and plant, having been set in motion at creation, endure throughout the millennia, held together and fuelled by tireless subatomic forces? As amazing and incredible as it would be to create a universe that just kept going and going all by itself while its Creator stood by changing lives and answering prayers and loving people, maybe that’s not the way things are. Maybe every atom, every nucleus, every proton and neutron, the very ‘fabric’ of time and space is held together and urged forward in perpetual motion solely by God’s power. Or what if the continual existence of each fundamental particle is somehow bound up in the continual existence of God?

The same power that not only created, but also, in some way that defies explication, continually lends being to all that is; the same power that resurrected Christ; the power of the Christian Pentecost, poured out through tongues of fire and manifest in diverse giftings, is accessible to Christians today.

05.19.06

Gah!

Posted in Confessions, Reflections at 08:08

I got up at 07:30 today for an appointment with the optometrist at 8:30. Couldn’t remember exactly where it was, so I got out the phone book. E 15th street. Hmm. I looked at the map in the front. Oh yeah, E 15th is right off Boise. Near the hospital. I could picture the place now. I set off with plenty of time to get there, and it was gone. The whole office complex had vanished. After wasting ten minutes trying to figure out why the addresses were in the 1700s instead of the 3500s, I finally stumbled onto the office complex. It was definitely on 18th street. The practice was gone, and something had replaced it. I couldn’t even be sure where it had been. I called them and asked where they were located (typical man thing: wait until you’ve wasted ten minutes searching and are ten minutes late to call and ask for directions.) Yes, they’ve definitely moved about fifteen blocks east and three blocks south. I thought I would double check my appointment time and let them know I would be a little late. Yep, it was definitely at 8:30—“Do you want to set up a new appointment then?” I explained that I would be there in about ten minutes. She explained in so many words that it hadn’t been a question— They have a twelve-minute grace period. I looked at my watch. I was eleven minutes late and many blocks away. “How about something next week.” “I’ll have to call back later.”

It’s so easy to blame someone else. Twelve freaking minutes? You’ve got to be kidding me. or You can’t tell me that if I hadn’t called, but had walked in twenty minutes late that they’d have turned me away. or Why didn’t they flipping tell me they had moved when I made my appointment?

My mental tape recorder answered the latter. “Now, have you been to our new office?” I had answered in the affirmative. It seems that in trying to make three doctor’s appointments at the same time I had gotten the optometrist confused with the dentist, who had moved several years ago. Of course I knew the dentist had moved! I even tried to give them my dental insurance.

I should have looked up the address before this morning. I should have Google-mapsed it (that’s my answer to the verb Mapquest) when I had trouble remembering, then I would have seen it had moved. I should have known something was really wrong when a medical office complex had vanished off the face of the earth. And when addresses were way to low.

Just like the stamps incident, I got mad at other people because I knew it was my own fault. Why are we so eager to vindicate ourselves at another’s expense?