So... Were was I? ...
Um... Right, so here we come to one of the most complicated, convoluted and confusing parts of dealing with an all-knowing eternal God. He has a very different way of looking at the world. If you want to serve Him you have to understand that His plans don't make sense. They aren't clear. They're disjointed and indirect.
At least, they are to us. He sees things we don't, and He knows more then you can dream.
On top of that He is a poet. He believes in symbols. He loves to play out things sweet, bitter sweet and sometimes just bitter. It seems to me that few people, if any, ever understand the full significance of their life. For those of us who are servants of the Lord, we're not supposed to understand. We are only supposed to obey. More of that in the Jeremiah post though.
As for the wider issue of God's will, we soon hit contentious ground. Remember it's not our place to understand what it is God is doing. So this is honest to goodness unclear.
Is everything that happens the will of God?
My answer is simple.
No. Very little that happens is according to God's will. But you can be sure of this. Though as individuals, as families and as nations we defy God's will, His plan for the world is unavoidable. God can use bad things. Things He never wanted to happen to His advantage.
But then you'd be right in asking why an all-powerful God, an all-good God would let bad things happen at all. The answer is one that is distasteful to most; we asked for it.
The human race decided to seek a life away from God. Most of what we see today is God letting us explore that option.
What you need to keep in perspective is that this life, and everything that ever happens here is very small in the eyes of eternity. A person can suffer unimaginably in even the opening years of their lives, but God offers an eternity of something unbelievably good. And that offer will be made to everyone.
I've often heard non-Christians point out the amount of people who never hear about the Gospel, and the seeming inequity that raises. My reply to that is in two parts.
First, we know that Judgement of the soul does not happen at the moment of death (Revelation (the whole book)), and that we are capable of consciousness apart from our bodies (1 Samuel 28). I don't doubt that many a revelation and conversation has gone on in that in between place.
Second is that God takes a persons upbringing and environment into account when he judges a person, as large portions of Romans indicates. God judges people by their hearts. A person who says they follow Christ and even look like it, but have no evidence of it in their heart, will be far worse off then a person who grew up in the Amazon and never even knew about aeroplanes let alone Jesus, but committed themselves to conducting themselves in a right way, and longed for the true, the pure and the just. Jesus is the only way to eternal life, I'm just trying to say that even someone who doesn't know about God can commune with Him, and follow Him.
Then there is the greatest bogyman of all. Hell. How does a good God send people to a place were they suffer for eternity?
First I need you to take everything you know about hell and dispose of it unceremoniously. The Catholic Church once had a love affair with a particular poet. Who liked to write about things like hell, which, ironically he didn't believe in, because he was a pagan. But the Catholics liked it anyway, and essentially adopted it as cannon. So pretty much every image of hell we have is based on this.
At best the typical picture of hell can be called culturally irrelevant, at worst blasphemous. Again it's a case of baby Christian syndrome. Most Christians haven't even read the Bible, let alone understand it. Instead they take on centuries old folk lore and call it truth.
The culturally relevant and theologically sound view of hell can probably be best explained like this. In hell a person's soul is separated from God. Then they are destroyed. It is an eternal punishment. The person will not be recreated. They are gone forever. Something lives on in that place. But that thing is not the person.
You see in the beginning we were created perfect. In the image of God. Beings of pure good. At the fall "sin" was introduced. Best think of sin here as new elements, ideas, all of them bad by nature. Greed, mistrust, pride, envy, the list goes on. The people we are today, you and me, are people caught in between. In between the perfect person God intends us to be and the ugly, selfish thing that the forces of evil want us to be. If we choose God we get Heaven, the place where He will restore us to what we were meant to be, and all the bad, the sin, is destroyed. Otherwise we choose hell, were the perfect image will be destroyed and the bad will live on separated from God.
That thing that lives on in Hell, in torment, it's not a person. It's not any of the things you loved about them. It's their sickness. It's their pain. It's the demons inside them that tortured the real person all their life. The real person is gone. Destroyed.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Cold Hard Cash
I've been thinking about the Jeremiah post coming up, and I think I need to backtrack a little to properly explain that one. There are two massive concepts I have to give you some incite in, to help explain my views. The first is faith, the second is God's will. So I have to backtrack, not one, but two post to get there.
So let us start on faith with a firm testing ground.
Money.
The theoretical Christian ideal for thought about money is as follows. All the world is God's. Money is included. I am God's servant, thus He makes His resources available to me. I love everyone just as well as I love myself. It makes no difference how much money I "have", because all money is available to me, and if it benefits anyone it is good.
Sum total, a buck in the hand is the same as a buck in the bush. God will provide.
Before you dismiss this as too bizarre, take look into Hudson Taylor's story. This bloke moved to China in the 1800's to preach the gospel, and just crossed his figures when it came to money. And it worked like a charm.
BUT it gets more complicated then that. Christian are commanded things like:
'"Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you," Thessalonians 4:11'.
In our society that means, almost inexorably, a nine-to-five job. Add a family, that we must provide for and we're looking far more like everyone else. With our societies huge wealth it gets even more blurry. How do you provide the right amount of education and positive upbringing? Need to keep a roof over their heads. Need to get a good computer and a fast internet connection. The holiday is an important life experience. Good schooling, transport.
Hudson had it easy. It was a straight forward equation. Work for God. Wait for his pay. There was no one else.
So what's with that? Let me give you a little illustration to clear things up.
Imagine a person walking through a jungle when he comes to a cliff. On the other side of the drop the jungle carries on like before.
God tells him to get over the ditch. There's two options open to him. The first is to go into the jungle, cut down some trees and begin to construct a bridge. If he does this, he has faith. And he works in his faith to get to the objective God's given him.
The other option is to just try to walk across on thin air and pray God will hold him up. This action is just as faithful and twice as brave. Also twice as likely to fail.
You see it's here that we begin to understand why God wants Christians to work hard, etc. It's so we live a normal life. A natural life. Because the best way to convey Christ is to show him in real life. I'm far more impressed by an individual who gets up in the morning and suffers through whatever task they are doing to try to reach an end they believe in then by someone who has life fall into their lap because they believe something.
The only time God tends to use just walking across is when He needs to take a shortcut.
What you need to understand is that both those techniques in the end require the same amount of faith. Someone with a true grip on the concept of God knows that the same God who defies gravity is the one that compels the laws of physics to maintain the structural integrity of the bridge.
In fact if something goes wrong and you fall it's God's creation of gravity that sends you plummeting toward the ground, and His invention of momentum that smashes your fragile body over the hard rock. In a convoluted way it's God that kills you.
Faith isn't in the action. How big, or crazy or supernatural it is. It's in the doing at all. What's on the other side anyway? Why should I risk for that?
If we really understood what was going on, we would know that it's the same level of faith that leads one man to pray and wait for the money to show up in the mail as it does for another to work a hard day.
Unfortunately it's easy for a man to have faith in the economy or society or structural engineering rather then God. That's the reality you will see in the churches, mostly.
Keep your eyes open for those who follow God to whatever end He is leading them, through whatever trials that will take them. They are the people who will show you what Christianity is.
So let us start on faith with a firm testing ground.
Money.
The theoretical Christian ideal for thought about money is as follows. All the world is God's. Money is included. I am God's servant, thus He makes His resources available to me. I love everyone just as well as I love myself. It makes no difference how much money I "have", because all money is available to me, and if it benefits anyone it is good.
Sum total, a buck in the hand is the same as a buck in the bush. God will provide.
Before you dismiss this as too bizarre, take look into Hudson Taylor's story. This bloke moved to China in the 1800's to preach the gospel, and just crossed his figures when it came to money. And it worked like a charm.
BUT it gets more complicated then that. Christian are commanded things like:
'"Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you," Thessalonians 4:11'.
In our society that means, almost inexorably, a nine-to-five job. Add a family, that we must provide for and we're looking far more like everyone else. With our societies huge wealth it gets even more blurry. How do you provide the right amount of education and positive upbringing? Need to keep a roof over their heads. Need to get a good computer and a fast internet connection. The holiday is an important life experience. Good schooling, transport.
Hudson had it easy. It was a straight forward equation. Work for God. Wait for his pay. There was no one else.
So what's with that? Let me give you a little illustration to clear things up.
Imagine a person walking through a jungle when he comes to a cliff. On the other side of the drop the jungle carries on like before.
God tells him to get over the ditch. There's two options open to him. The first is to go into the jungle, cut down some trees and begin to construct a bridge. If he does this, he has faith. And he works in his faith to get to the objective God's given him.
The other option is to just try to walk across on thin air and pray God will hold him up. This action is just as faithful and twice as brave. Also twice as likely to fail.
You see it's here that we begin to understand why God wants Christians to work hard, etc. It's so we live a normal life. A natural life. Because the best way to convey Christ is to show him in real life. I'm far more impressed by an individual who gets up in the morning and suffers through whatever task they are doing to try to reach an end they believe in then by someone who has life fall into their lap because they believe something.
The only time God tends to use just walking across is when He needs to take a shortcut.
What you need to understand is that both those techniques in the end require the same amount of faith. Someone with a true grip on the concept of God knows that the same God who defies gravity is the one that compels the laws of physics to maintain the structural integrity of the bridge.
In fact if something goes wrong and you fall it's God's creation of gravity that sends you plummeting toward the ground, and His invention of momentum that smashes your fragile body over the hard rock. In a convoluted way it's God that kills you.
Faith isn't in the action. How big, or crazy or supernatural it is. It's in the doing at all. What's on the other side anyway? Why should I risk for that?
If we really understood what was going on, we would know that it's the same level of faith that leads one man to pray and wait for the money to show up in the mail as it does for another to work a hard day.
Unfortunately it's easy for a man to have faith in the economy or society or structural engineering rather then God. That's the reality you will see in the churches, mostly.
Keep your eyes open for those who follow God to whatever end He is leading them, through whatever trials that will take them. They are the people who will show you what Christianity is.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Christians and "Christians"
The other day, at college I had a really insightful conversation with some of my classmates. I've found the themes repeated lately so I think it's time for me to write about it.
It was during this conversation that one of the girls said something I thought was just inspired.(if you've been reading the comments on my post yes this is Brooke's famous quote) She was talking about a person she knew who claimed to be a Christian but showed no evidence of it in their life. A hypocrite. What I would refer to as a "Christian". She then summed up her feeling about this person in a rather eloquent way. "I was like, I'm more of a Christian then you, except for the not believing in God bit!"
It's a sad fact that every one of us will come into contact with a massive number of this type of person in our lifetimes. It's unavoidable. But I want to make this clear, with no apologies. These people show with their actions that by definition they not only fail to be in relationship with God, but become the worst of His enemies.
It's precisely because of the label they give themselves. Christian. To be honest I don't like calling myself a Christian. You see it has a fundamental flaw. It's a word without a definition. It literally started as a nickname. It doesn't mean anymore then the words, jock or nerd, do to us now. It has connotations, but if you ask people for a definition they'll fail to give one, and if they do it'll almost certainly be a different to the definition anyone else will give you. This is because it's not a word with a definition, it's meaning comes from it's vibe. It's the vibe of the thing.
So, you see, the word Christian means a lot of things to a lot of people. I don't want to be to tightly associated with the word, because it in turn is tightly associated with a lot of things I'm definitely not, and a lot of beliefs I definitely don't have.
So you see, when I person identifies themselves as Christian, it doesn't mean anything in particular. Just that they associate with people, organizations, rituals and/or beliefs that in turn are associated with the word Christian.
The major faction of "Christians" in the West. The hypocritical kind, stem from one major fault line. It's in understanding one half of the salvation story. I need to reiterate concepts like sin and "hell" in a latter post, but the key is understanding that God offers release from sin and thus, an immunity to "hell".
The "Christians" understand this, they see freedom. Complete freedom. They look at it this way. I am freed from the consequences of my actions, thus I can do whatever I want. I don't even need to understand them.
This is utter ... ... just fill in the blank with every single negative phrase and expletive you can think of and it's probably a good descriptive. God does offer freedom from what we are captive to now. But He also guarantees captivity to a new master. Himself.
And so the "Christians" stop at freedom. They never move forward. They never challenge their beliefs or their behavior any further. They question nothing. Why should they? They have a self-replenishing get-out-of-jail free card, and almost always they go to a church were they are comforted and encouraged not to go any further.
But in the end these people just remain stuck half way through a process. I process of death and rebirth. They have died to a captivity they knew, but they havn't come back to life. They havn't exected the new burden of them. They havn't subjected themselves to the physics of their new world.
Jesus never said life with him would be easy. There are parts of the Gospels were he tries to talk people OUT of following him. He tells them how hard it's going to be. He says they must give up everything. He calls himself a hard man, who gathers were he did not sow, and reaps were he did lay seed. He did not ganentee what we call freedom.
People need to read the contract carefully. Becoming a Christian means selling your soul. It means becoming someone else's possession. You work for Him now. You have nothing.
There is a truth few in the West seem to understand about Christianity. The one fate that is worse then not being a Christian. Is the one in store for those that call themselves a Christian but do not bend their backs and serve their God.
It was during this conversation that one of the girls said something I thought was just inspired.(if you've been reading the comments on my post yes this is Brooke's famous quote) She was talking about a person she knew who claimed to be a Christian but showed no evidence of it in their life. A hypocrite. What I would refer to as a "Christian". She then summed up her feeling about this person in a rather eloquent way. "I was like, I'm more of a Christian then you, except for the not believing in God bit!"
It's a sad fact that every one of us will come into contact with a massive number of this type of person in our lifetimes. It's unavoidable. But I want to make this clear, with no apologies. These people show with their actions that by definition they not only fail to be in relationship with God, but become the worst of His enemies.
It's precisely because of the label they give themselves. Christian. To be honest I don't like calling myself a Christian. You see it has a fundamental flaw. It's a word without a definition. It literally started as a nickname. It doesn't mean anymore then the words, jock or nerd, do to us now. It has connotations, but if you ask people for a definition they'll fail to give one, and if they do it'll almost certainly be a different to the definition anyone else will give you. This is because it's not a word with a definition, it's meaning comes from it's vibe. It's the vibe of the thing.
So, you see, the word Christian means a lot of things to a lot of people. I don't want to be to tightly associated with the word, because it in turn is tightly associated with a lot of things I'm definitely not, and a lot of beliefs I definitely don't have.
So you see, when I person identifies themselves as Christian, it doesn't mean anything in particular. Just that they associate with people, organizations, rituals and/or beliefs that in turn are associated with the word Christian.
The major faction of "Christians" in the West. The hypocritical kind, stem from one major fault line. It's in understanding one half of the salvation story. I need to reiterate concepts like sin and "hell" in a latter post, but the key is understanding that God offers release from sin and thus, an immunity to "hell".
The "Christians" understand this, they see freedom. Complete freedom. They look at it this way. I am freed from the consequences of my actions, thus I can do whatever I want. I don't even need to understand them.
This is utter ... ... just fill in the blank with every single negative phrase and expletive you can think of and it's probably a good descriptive. God does offer freedom from what we are captive to now. But He also guarantees captivity to a new master. Himself.
And so the "Christians" stop at freedom. They never move forward. They never challenge their beliefs or their behavior any further. They question nothing. Why should they? They have a self-replenishing get-out-of-jail free card, and almost always they go to a church were they are comforted and encouraged not to go any further.
But in the end these people just remain stuck half way through a process. I process of death and rebirth. They have died to a captivity they knew, but they havn't come back to life. They havn't exected the new burden of them. They havn't subjected themselves to the physics of their new world.
Jesus never said life with him would be easy. There are parts of the Gospels were he tries to talk people OUT of following him. He tells them how hard it's going to be. He says they must give up everything. He calls himself a hard man, who gathers were he did not sow, and reaps were he did lay seed. He did not ganentee what we call freedom.
People need to read the contract carefully. Becoming a Christian means selling your soul. It means becoming someone else's possession. You work for Him now. You have nothing.
There is a truth few in the West seem to understand about Christianity. The one fate that is worse then not being a Christian. Is the one in store for those that call themselves a Christian but do not bend their backs and serve their God.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Wedding Fallout
On the weekend I had the joy of being best man at a mates wedding in Melbourne. I thought I would post about this particular wedding because of the nature of this particular couple. You see these too people not only felt it was right to marry, but that God was calling them to get married.
This is the bit were everyone gets uncomfortable. These two raise a lot of issues we put in the "better not talk about it" basket. We have divine will, visions, the voice of God, chastity and modesty, pre-marital sex, covenants and God's involvement in marriage. And that's before we start really looking.
Needless to say, I'm not going to try to talk about this all now. All I want to do right now is tell you a bit of their story, just for thinking material.
Jason had always held the idea of God having picked out a girl for him very close. From a young age he began praying for the girl, whoever she happened to be. He trusted, that when the time was right, God would bring that girl into his life, and really until that time came, he didn't want any relationships.
At a certain age the girls in Sarah's family make a covenant, or promise with their father. In this promise the daughter commits to remaining pure. The promise is made over a gold key, which her father proceeds to wear around his neck, until the day comes when he is to hand the key to another man. (this touches heavily on the topic of pre-marital sex from the Christian perspective which is to much of an issue to explain here so I fully expect this to be a hard practice to understand)
One day, at an interschool camp, Jason and Sarah met. By the time Jason came home, he felt that this could be the girl. So, after talking to his parents, he began to pray. He prayed long and hard. Eventually he decided to ask Sarah's dad for permission to court her. That's right, court not date. Fine difference, but the essential point is that Jason's intention was to marry her.
Now Sarah's father told Jason he would also have to pray before agreeing to anything. After several weeks of prayer without answer he had a vision. The details of the vision he still hasn't revealed in full, but it was clear to him that the relationship was the will of God. So he allowed Jason to ask Sarah to begin courting. Sarah speedily agreed as she liked Jason as much as he liked her.
After two years of dates and quality time (always chaperoned), devotions and prayer over the phone every day, Jason asked Sarah to marry him. That led, inexorably, to the wedding last week end, were Sarah's father handed that key to Jason.
Jason and Sarah are a rare example of the extreme other way of doing romance. To be honest I've been a bit blown away by it.
But what baring does it have on us? Well, I think it's one thing to talk about ideals and principles, it's another all together to see them in action.
This is the bit were everyone gets uncomfortable. These two raise a lot of issues we put in the "better not talk about it" basket. We have divine will, visions, the voice of God, chastity and modesty, pre-marital sex, covenants and God's involvement in marriage. And that's before we start really looking.
Needless to say, I'm not going to try to talk about this all now. All I want to do right now is tell you a bit of their story, just for thinking material.
Jason had always held the idea of God having picked out a girl for him very close. From a young age he began praying for the girl, whoever she happened to be. He trusted, that when the time was right, God would bring that girl into his life, and really until that time came, he didn't want any relationships.
At a certain age the girls in Sarah's family make a covenant, or promise with their father. In this promise the daughter commits to remaining pure. The promise is made over a gold key, which her father proceeds to wear around his neck, until the day comes when he is to hand the key to another man. (this touches heavily on the topic of pre-marital sex from the Christian perspective which is to much of an issue to explain here so I fully expect this to be a hard practice to understand)
One day, at an interschool camp, Jason and Sarah met. By the time Jason came home, he felt that this could be the girl. So, after talking to his parents, he began to pray. He prayed long and hard. Eventually he decided to ask Sarah's dad for permission to court her. That's right, court not date. Fine difference, but the essential point is that Jason's intention was to marry her.
Now Sarah's father told Jason he would also have to pray before agreeing to anything. After several weeks of prayer without answer he had a vision. The details of the vision he still hasn't revealed in full, but it was clear to him that the relationship was the will of God. So he allowed Jason to ask Sarah to begin courting. Sarah speedily agreed as she liked Jason as much as he liked her.
After two years of dates and quality time (always chaperoned), devotions and prayer over the phone every day, Jason asked Sarah to marry him. That led, inexorably, to the wedding last week end, were Sarah's father handed that key to Jason.
Jason and Sarah are a rare example of the extreme other way of doing romance. To be honest I've been a bit blown away by it.
But what baring does it have on us? Well, I think it's one thing to talk about ideals and principles, it's another all together to see them in action.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tim
I have an old friend who is in Afghanistan at the moment. It's part of a massive trip he's planned that's going to take him around Asia, Europe and Africa. Every now and then he drops an update. He's only up to update two, but it's absolutely amazing. Seriously the second post took my breath away. So I think you guys should check it out.
He posts on http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=62363633274&topic=8164
If you join the group then you will have the updates land in your inbox on facebook!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=62363633274
Seeing this is a short post I should probably rant about something.
Um... What's up with... Buses and junk... With the... Not coming on... Oh, I give up!
He posts on http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=62363633274&topic=8164
If you join the group then you will have the updates land in your inbox on facebook!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=62363633274
Seeing this is a short post I should probably rant about something.
Um... What's up with... Buses and junk... With the... Not coming on... Oh, I give up!
Monday, May 25, 2009
The Superlong Post
Forgive me the superlong post, but I want to spend some time explaining the name Jacob Jeremiah. As Brooke pointed out in her comment my real name is Jonathan. (Spot on spelling Brooke) I chose Jacob Jeremiah as a pseudonym because of the great significance those two characters have on my outlook.
Jacob, as you may know, is a character from the Old Testament. Think "Joseph the Dreamer's" dad. It was during his time that the Hebrews, then consisting only of his family, moved into Egypt. Which incidentally turned out to be a bad idea, and culminated in a nasty episode involving 10 plagues and a 40 year trip in the desert.
Anyway, Jacob started off life as the second of twins, which means that he missed out on being daddy Issac's heir by about 5 minutes. Before he's even born there's a prophecy made about the boys, that the younger would overcome the older. On top of that Jacob's mum and dad decided to play favorites. While his big bro Esau was dad's manly hunter son, Jacob was the responsible mummy's boy.
It's not that surprising that Jacob got fed up with the situation, and with a little coaxing from his mum was convinced to fool his ailing father into accidentally leaving the best bits to him. And it turns out it was a lot more then just material wealth. Issac passed on a promise to him, a promise that was made to his father, (Jacob's granddaddy) Abraham. A promise by who? By God himself. A promise of prosperity, a great future and a legacy that would stretch into eternity.
Needless to say, Esau was totally pissed off! A little bit of intrigue occurs between Esau and dad at this point which becomes incredibly important another couple of hundred years down the track. However the relevant part is that Esau decided that after Issac does croke he's going to make Jacob croke too.
It's at this point Jacob goes into exile. He runs away. Far, far away.
It's at this point you need to get into Jacob's head. He begins to have encounters with God. He's separated from everything he's ever known. He didn't take wealth with him, he was using rocks as pillows. He's considered a child of prophecy, and now he has the promise to back it up. But at the same time, he has nothing.
Finally he makes it to his uncles joint, back in the land his mum came from. It's at this point a little romance gets thrown in. Jacob meets his cousin (yes cousin, this was back in the day that that was considered far less creepy) and falls madly in love with her. So, after some hard dealing he makes a contract with uncle. He gets the girl for 7 years labour.
He does it too. It says it didn't seem very long to him, he's so in love with that girl. So at the end of the 7 years he gets the girl. But his backstabbing uncle decides it would be shameful to marry off Rachel without marrying off he big sister first. So he pulls a swiftly and Jacob ends out married to the wrong chick! On top of that his uncle demands another 7 years for Rachel.
So Jacob does it. That's how much he wants the girl. But it's something that he struggles with directly for the next 20 something years of his life, and the real consequences, the backstabbing and conflict between the sisters, leaves scares on him and his sons for many generations.
Jacob now decides to really build up his wealth. He agrees to another contract with his uncle. This time in return for livestock. God blesses Jacob, and with a bit off tricky gaming Jacob becomes increasingly stinking rich.
It's at this point we see the rubber hit the road. God asks Jacob to do the stupidest thing ever. God tells him to go home.
Over the trip, moving ever closer to his psychotically angry brother, we see Jacob really begin to crack. You see, in life, Jacob feels like he's kind of been screwed over. He follows God. But God never seems to just give him good things. Everything comes through suffering. And things have happened to him he didn't deserve, all for following this path. All the while he hears of his brother, marching towards him, with 400 men, to meet him. Jacob feels like a dead man.
It culminates one night, as he spends time alone, trying to get his head together, and a man comes out of the dark. They become locked in a physical struggle. They struggle through the night. As the sun rises the man "wrenches" Jacob's hip by touching it. (giving away that he's not just a man) Jacob refuses to let go until the mysterious man blesses him.
The mysterious man then renames Jacob as Israel, "Because you have struggled with men and with God and overcome."
Jacob was blessed because he struggled with God. Because he struggled with God. Struggled with God... and overcame.
You have to understand this isn't a struggle for superiority. God wrenched his hip with a touch. You can't become superior to God. This was a struggle for understanding and purpose. For answers of why the world was how it was. It was an internal struggle to find the purpose of the pain God had dragged him through.
The struggle with the mysterious man was the physical incarnation of a spiritual struggle. That's how intense it had got for him.
It's then that we see Jacob, now limping because of his hip, cross the river towards his brother.
I hope you understand that it doesn't matter what happened when they met. At this point Jacob is more complete then he has ever been.
It isn't a shameful thing to struggle with God. He wants us too. I don't half doubt some of the bad things that happen in life are purely there to provoke us. To wake us up. We can never be made whole, if we never wake to our emptiness.
Jacob, as you may know, is a character from the Old Testament. Think "Joseph the Dreamer's" dad. It was during his time that the Hebrews, then consisting only of his family, moved into Egypt. Which incidentally turned out to be a bad idea, and culminated in a nasty episode involving 10 plagues and a 40 year trip in the desert.
Anyway, Jacob started off life as the second of twins, which means that he missed out on being daddy Issac's heir by about 5 minutes. Before he's even born there's a prophecy made about the boys, that the younger would overcome the older. On top of that Jacob's mum and dad decided to play favorites. While his big bro Esau was dad's manly hunter son, Jacob was the responsible mummy's boy.
It's not that surprising that Jacob got fed up with the situation, and with a little coaxing from his mum was convinced to fool his ailing father into accidentally leaving the best bits to him. And it turns out it was a lot more then just material wealth. Issac passed on a promise to him, a promise that was made to his father, (Jacob's granddaddy) Abraham. A promise by who? By God himself. A promise of prosperity, a great future and a legacy that would stretch into eternity.
Needless to say, Esau was totally pissed off! A little bit of intrigue occurs between Esau and dad at this point which becomes incredibly important another couple of hundred years down the track. However the relevant part is that Esau decided that after Issac does croke he's going to make Jacob croke too.
It's at this point Jacob goes into exile. He runs away. Far, far away.
It's at this point you need to get into Jacob's head. He begins to have encounters with God. He's separated from everything he's ever known. He didn't take wealth with him, he was using rocks as pillows. He's considered a child of prophecy, and now he has the promise to back it up. But at the same time, he has nothing.
Finally he makes it to his uncles joint, back in the land his mum came from. It's at this point a little romance gets thrown in. Jacob meets his cousin (yes cousin, this was back in the day that that was considered far less creepy) and falls madly in love with her. So, after some hard dealing he makes a contract with uncle. He gets the girl for 7 years labour.
He does it too. It says it didn't seem very long to him, he's so in love with that girl. So at the end of the 7 years he gets the girl. But his backstabbing uncle decides it would be shameful to marry off Rachel without marrying off he big sister first. So he pulls a swiftly and Jacob ends out married to the wrong chick! On top of that his uncle demands another 7 years for Rachel.
So Jacob does it. That's how much he wants the girl. But it's something that he struggles with directly for the next 20 something years of his life, and the real consequences, the backstabbing and conflict between the sisters, leaves scares on him and his sons for many generations.
Jacob now decides to really build up his wealth. He agrees to another contract with his uncle. This time in return for livestock. God blesses Jacob, and with a bit off tricky gaming Jacob becomes increasingly stinking rich.
It's at this point we see the rubber hit the road. God asks Jacob to do the stupidest thing ever. God tells him to go home.
Over the trip, moving ever closer to his psychotically angry brother, we see Jacob really begin to crack. You see, in life, Jacob feels like he's kind of been screwed over. He follows God. But God never seems to just give him good things. Everything comes through suffering. And things have happened to him he didn't deserve, all for following this path. All the while he hears of his brother, marching towards him, with 400 men, to meet him. Jacob feels like a dead man.
It culminates one night, as he spends time alone, trying to get his head together, and a man comes out of the dark. They become locked in a physical struggle. They struggle through the night. As the sun rises the man "wrenches" Jacob's hip by touching it. (giving away that he's not just a man) Jacob refuses to let go until the mysterious man blesses him.
The mysterious man then renames Jacob as Israel, "Because you have struggled with men and with God and overcome."
Jacob was blessed because he struggled with God. Because he struggled with God. Struggled with God... and overcame.
You have to understand this isn't a struggle for superiority. God wrenched his hip with a touch. You can't become superior to God. This was a struggle for understanding and purpose. For answers of why the world was how it was. It was an internal struggle to find the purpose of the pain God had dragged him through.
The struggle with the mysterious man was the physical incarnation of a spiritual struggle. That's how intense it had got for him.
It's then that we see Jacob, now limping because of his hip, cross the river towards his brother.
I hope you understand that it doesn't matter what happened when they met. At this point Jacob is more complete then he has ever been.
It isn't a shameful thing to struggle with God. He wants us too. I don't half doubt some of the bad things that happen in life are purely there to provoke us. To wake us up. We can never be made whole, if we never wake to our emptiness.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Better Late Then Never
I'm super pumped at the moment for the new Project 86 album, due to come out on July 14. It will be their 7th studio album. If you haven't heard these guys, they are big. Especially in my scene. They are big, bad and have a lot to say.
I'm a bit after the mark, but I recommend this interview with the lead vocals:
http://jesusfreakhideout.com/interviews/Project86_Phone2009.asp
He's a really articulate and well spoken man.
For a listen to some of their stuff:
http://www.myspace.com/project86
http://www.purevolume.com/project86
And while we're on the topic of music, I've been listening to a CD of b sides, demos and rares of Flyleaf. Man, I love that band. Lacy is definitely my favorite female vocalist. The rest of the band was real good too, before the producer neutered them. Such a shame, their demos are FAR better then the album versions.
I'm a bit after the mark, but I recommend this interview with the lead vocals:
http://jesusfreakhideout.com/interviews/Project86_Phone2009.asp
He's a really articulate and well spoken man.
For a listen to some of their stuff:
http://www.myspace.com/project86
http://www.purevolume.com/project86
And while we're on the topic of music, I've been listening to a CD of b sides, demos and rares of Flyleaf. Man, I love that band. Lacy is definitely my favorite female vocalist. The rest of the band was real good too, before the producer neutered them. Such a shame, their demos are FAR better then the album versions.
Monday, May 11, 2009
The Accidental Strawman
While writing my last post I had to use a good measure of restraint to avoid launching into a long rant on one of my pet hates and obsessions. I ended out using the example of abortion in legal morality because I have respect for both sides of the mainstream argument. In the particular topic I'm thinking of I don't have respect for one of the factions. The Christian one.
The argument is of gay marriage. I find the stubborn opposition Christians tend to show in this area unimaginably frustrating. I find it frustrating because there is no straight answer. Only straw-men. Usually something about the negative affects on children. But in their heart the majority (though not the loud ones) know that this is not the real reason that they show opposition. The problem is that they know it has more to do with their own beliefs then any real concern of the mental state of children. Not to say those concerns don't exist, but just that they are not the real motivator.
But society has taught us to think relatively and so, because we are tolerant, we must keep beliefs out of it. And so the straw-men are invented and dressed up. And we've been pretending their real so long we've forgotten they aren't.
So without further ado, here, in my words, is the real problem Christianity has with gay and lesbian marriage.
First, what is marriage? In the modern world it is a legal contract. It defines the legal relationship between two people. OK, that's cold. But as numerous soaps and comedies have reminded us, it only implies a spiritual and emotional bound. Otherwise it's marley a contract.
But this isn't the view Christians have. From the Christian view marriage is a spiritual connection. A spiritual union even. It was a union created and sealed by God. The ceremony and the legal contract came after. They came as reminders of the bond shared.
So here you have opposing views. To humanists marriage is a legal bond that implies a spiritual one, and to Christians marriage is a spiritual bond that implies a legal one.
However you feel about tolerance toward the homosexual portion of the population. However close minded you think Christians may be. This issue runs over the line of right and wrong sexual conduct and into the very definition of a sacred bond and relic of the Christian heritage this country holds.
For the humanist the extension of marriage to be available for gays and lesbians is like extending the definition of eligible voter to include women. For the Christians it like extending the definition of aardvark to be inclusive of hummingbirds.
You are trying to change something sacred to cover something it is not.
The simple fact is that, even if you practice it in law, to a Christian, a man can never marry a man, or a woman a woman. It's not possible. Despite what you call it.
That is why the thought is offencive to the Christian faith.
The argument is of gay marriage. I find the stubborn opposition Christians tend to show in this area unimaginably frustrating. I find it frustrating because there is no straight answer. Only straw-men. Usually something about the negative affects on children. But in their heart the majority (though not the loud ones) know that this is not the real reason that they show opposition. The problem is that they know it has more to do with their own beliefs then any real concern of the mental state of children. Not to say those concerns don't exist, but just that they are not the real motivator.
But society has taught us to think relatively and so, because we are tolerant, we must keep beliefs out of it. And so the straw-men are invented and dressed up. And we've been pretending their real so long we've forgotten they aren't.
So without further ado, here, in my words, is the real problem Christianity has with gay and lesbian marriage.
First, what is marriage? In the modern world it is a legal contract. It defines the legal relationship between two people. OK, that's cold. But as numerous soaps and comedies have reminded us, it only implies a spiritual and emotional bound. Otherwise it's marley a contract.
But this isn't the view Christians have. From the Christian view marriage is a spiritual connection. A spiritual union even. It was a union created and sealed by God. The ceremony and the legal contract came after. They came as reminders of the bond shared.
So here you have opposing views. To humanists marriage is a legal bond that implies a spiritual one, and to Christians marriage is a spiritual bond that implies a legal one.
However you feel about tolerance toward the homosexual portion of the population. However close minded you think Christians may be. This issue runs over the line of right and wrong sexual conduct and into the very definition of a sacred bond and relic of the Christian heritage this country holds.
For the humanist the extension of marriage to be available for gays and lesbians is like extending the definition of eligible voter to include women. For the Christians it like extending the definition of aardvark to be inclusive of hummingbirds.
You are trying to change something sacred to cover something it is not.
The simple fact is that, even if you practice it in law, to a Christian, a man can never marry a man, or a woman a woman. It's not possible. Despite what you call it.
That is why the thought is offencive to the Christian faith.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Relative
Last night I had a long conversation with a group of the people I live with, mainly relating to relativism and absolutism. This is a topic I touched on in my last post when I said that Christianity is self-reliant. Christianity also demands absolute truth. But that's not the message you'll always hear from Christians. This blog is about The Three Fallacies.
Relative truth says that what's truth for you is truth for you, and what's truth for me is truth for me. Absolutism says that, no matter what you think, there is a truth, and if what your think isn't that truth, your wrong.
Absolute truth has gone out of favor over the last century, and is actually quite repugnant as far as the West is concerned. No wonder with the intolerance shown to huge swathes of the population by the few that "had it all down".
Religion is the center stage in the great battle of the truths, and morality is the point of highest contention between Christianity and Humanism. Humanism says that there is no higher power then society to be held responsible to. So, as long as society finds it tolerable, all morality related law should be liberalized to allow for relative truth.
Abortion is a pretty clear example, as for once both sides of the argument are arguing on the right basis. In this debate the humanistic side even calls themselves pro-choice. They say that a woman should be able to make the moral decision for herself. Does she feel morally bound to bring the baby into the world? Sometimes its even, does she feel morally bound to not bring the baby into the world?
In relativism each person is their own judge. Liberalised laws make it possible.
Let me make something clear here. I think this, in general, is a good thing. Were it doesn't harm anyone to allow moral choice, allow moral choice.
But Christianity does demand absolutism. It demands that those who follow it see things in black and white. Right and wrong.
Christians haven't handled the situation very well though, so this tends to manifest in one of three ways. The Three Great Fallacies.
First is absolute rejection of, and meanness to, all who brake Christian moral law. That's just dumb. It's not our place to pass sentence on anyone. That's God's place. We are called to simply love.
Second is to become "tolerant". By which I mean, let others walk all over them, and hide in case the whole "right and wrong" thing offends anyone. This to is really dumb. If you are convinced of a danger as great as a judgment day with God, your not showing love by not warning people. It's not our place to pass sentence, but it is to warn people of the possible charges to be brought against them.
The third great fallacy is trying to break the chain of self-reliance in Christianity. This is most strongly embodied in the post-Christian religions. If your a non-Christian reading this, STAY AWAY from this fallacy. Jesus did not leave room for His words to be taken as just good advice, He did not intend to. Christianity must be taken literally, and in one piece, or not at all.
This, simply, is trying to change the rules. Redefining the rights and wrongs, to be more comfortable. It's a fallacy that's morphing too, from making others more comfortable, to making ourselves more comfortable. So we don't have to change for God, but He must change for us. I fear that this fallacy has crept in far more places in far more subtle ways then anyone truly realises.
Relative truth says that what's truth for you is truth for you, and what's truth for me is truth for me. Absolutism says that, no matter what you think, there is a truth, and if what your think isn't that truth, your wrong.
Absolute truth has gone out of favor over the last century, and is actually quite repugnant as far as the West is concerned. No wonder with the intolerance shown to huge swathes of the population by the few that "had it all down".
Religion is the center stage in the great battle of the truths, and morality is the point of highest contention between Christianity and Humanism. Humanism says that there is no higher power then society to be held responsible to. So, as long as society finds it tolerable, all morality related law should be liberalized to allow for relative truth.
Abortion is a pretty clear example, as for once both sides of the argument are arguing on the right basis. In this debate the humanistic side even calls themselves pro-choice. They say that a woman should be able to make the moral decision for herself. Does she feel morally bound to bring the baby into the world? Sometimes its even, does she feel morally bound to not bring the baby into the world?
In relativism each person is their own judge. Liberalised laws make it possible.
Let me make something clear here. I think this, in general, is a good thing. Were it doesn't harm anyone to allow moral choice, allow moral choice.
But Christianity does demand absolutism. It demands that those who follow it see things in black and white. Right and wrong.
Christians haven't handled the situation very well though, so this tends to manifest in one of three ways. The Three Great Fallacies.
First is absolute rejection of, and meanness to, all who brake Christian moral law. That's just dumb. It's not our place to pass sentence on anyone. That's God's place. We are called to simply love.
Second is to become "tolerant". By which I mean, let others walk all over them, and hide in case the whole "right and wrong" thing offends anyone. This to is really dumb. If you are convinced of a danger as great as a judgment day with God, your not showing love by not warning people. It's not our place to pass sentence, but it is to warn people of the possible charges to be brought against them.
The third great fallacy is trying to break the chain of self-reliance in Christianity. This is most strongly embodied in the post-Christian religions. If your a non-Christian reading this, STAY AWAY from this fallacy. Jesus did not leave room for His words to be taken as just good advice, He did not intend to. Christianity must be taken literally, and in one piece, or not at all.
This, simply, is trying to change the rules. Redefining the rights and wrongs, to be more comfortable. It's a fallacy that's morphing too, from making others more comfortable, to making ourselves more comfortable. So we don't have to change for God, but He must change for us. I fear that this fallacy has crept in far more places in far more subtle ways then anyone truly realises.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Why Christianity?
I know that a few of my classmates and others who don't have the same view on life as me are going to be reading this bolg. So I'd like to answer an obvious question about me. Why the Christian faith?
First I'd like to make it clear that this is going to be incredibly brief recounting, and I have more important reasons for believing then the ones I'll be listing. But not more coldly logical ones.
The first big question is of God, or god, or higher power or whatever you want to call it. There are two basic options, either there is or there isn't.
Because of our human limitations we only have the evidence we can see and touch and hear, science, to explain the world and were it came from. Unfortunately it can't. The problem being time.
Time by it's nature is finite. Which means at some point it began. This causes a problem because it's one of the dimensions of our physical reality. Basically science fails at this point. There is no way to test or measure or experience what happened before time itself began.
The strange realisation here is that all explanations for the universe are supernatural (not of our world).
That's not proof for a higher power, but it does put the higher power on equal footing as any other belief. If there isn't a higher power we wont understand how we got here in our lifetime, if ever. It would require either going outside, or seeing outside the dimensions we live in. That just hurts my head. I think if I gave up on a higher power I would either become a nihilist or a glutton. Seems to me there's not much point in doing anything but just enjoying yourself if there's no purpose to life.
So either the compulsion human beings have to believe in something greater then themselves is some sort of survival instinct or its driven by a deep knowledge of the truth. All I can say for that is that if it is survival instinct it's not doing a very good job.
As I see it a higher power could be intelligent or mindless. If it is mindless I would think that all religions are basically various degrees of misunderstandings of the truth. After all, who's good enough to understand it all? Any and all religions would be handy to know about in that case. Taoism and Buddhism being my picks as probably being the closest to the truth.
What if it is intelligent? Well I would say if it was it would want to be know to us. If it doesn't then it might as well be mindless. What I mean is that we are really only guessing what it's like.
So if the higher power is intelligent, and wants us to understand it, it seems to me that one of the religions are spot on, or at least was spot on before we started misinterpreting and changing it. You see the monotheistic religions, despite what you may have been told, are completely self-reliant. Basically put, if you remove one part then it all falls apart.
From here Christianity wins me on elegance. I'm definitely not talking about the idea you've got in your head about Christianity. The down side of living in a "Christian nation" is that Christians have become incredibly lazy through years of religious dominance.
Most Christians and "Christians" don't have a clue. Most don't have parents who have a clue. Most are running off what they have picked up in Sunday school.
Combine that with the epidemic that has gone round in the last 4 decades, "baby Christian syndrome", which is basically a trend towards weak, baby-level teachings, and you have little hope of getting a well thought out picture of what Christianity is.
This blog is about my battle with understanding. It is about my conception of the world. It is about my refusal to believe anything just because I've been told it. It is about the endless questions I pose my own beliefs. In this blog you will see Christianity and "Christianity" through my eyes, the eyes of a sceptic on the inside.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The Well-Meaning
Today I had a good chat to a friend from college. He was approached yesterday by two guys, who proceeded to tell him they were doing a survey for their church. They began to ask him questions. Being an up-and-coming journalist, my friend did what comes naturally and started asking questions back.
My friend threw out some easy ones relating to what we Christian refer to with a technical word, "salvation". The answer he got was a vague construct of the salvation message. (Jesus came and died for our sin so we could have eternal life, yadda, yadda, yadda) Don't think I'm being irreverent. This stuff is key. That is my point. We're here hundreds of years after the reformation, with a Bible in every second room and more time free from jobs of survival then ever before, and that's the most convincing version we can present.
Take my mates reaction for instance. First problem, what is "sin" and why do I need to be saved from it? If your anwser is that sin is rebelling against "God", why should I care? Do you mean to say that there's a god out there, who is weighing my actions morally, and has decided I deserve to burn forever, and he is supposed to be good?
Hebrews 6:1-2 calls this stuff "elementry principles". Yes, it's talking about the lot! A full and self-complete explaination of sin and why it is relevant to the average person is elementry. And it's not so hard.
So here's a question I want to pose the Christian reader. Do you understand the elementry principles? Could you explain it, in a relevant way to someone who did not believe?
I also have a challenge to all the non-Christian readers. Ask questions. If a Christian starts talking to you about spiritual things, ask them the hardest questions you can. There are only two correct replies. The first is to give you a solid anwser. The second is to admit they can't, and tell you how to contact someone who can.
My friend threw out some easy ones relating to what we Christian refer to with a technical word, "salvation". The answer he got was a vague construct of the salvation message. (Jesus came and died for our sin so we could have eternal life, yadda, yadda, yadda) Don't think I'm being irreverent. This stuff is key. That is my point. We're here hundreds of years after the reformation, with a Bible in every second room and more time free from jobs of survival then ever before, and that's the most convincing version we can present.
Take my mates reaction for instance. First problem, what is "sin" and why do I need to be saved from it? If your anwser is that sin is rebelling against "God", why should I care? Do you mean to say that there's a god out there, who is weighing my actions morally, and has decided I deserve to burn forever, and he is supposed to be good?
Hebrews 6:1-2 calls this stuff "elementry principles". Yes, it's talking about the lot! A full and self-complete explaination of sin and why it is relevant to the average person is elementry. And it's not so hard.
So here's a question I want to pose the Christian reader. Do you understand the elementry principles? Could you explain it, in a relevant way to someone who did not believe?
I also have a challenge to all the non-Christian readers. Ask questions. If a Christian starts talking to you about spiritual things, ask them the hardest questions you can. There are only two correct replies. The first is to give you a solid anwser. The second is to admit they can't, and tell you how to contact someone who can.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Gravity of Relationships
I moved into Sydney at the start of the year from Wodonga. Part of me is still very much in love with that place, but after spending my entire life there up until the move it was time to move on and experience new things. Now I live in a large church-run student lodging hostel.
Living with a large number of 18-22 year-olds who have all moved into Sydney at the start of the year in quite bizarre. I always liked watching Dr. Phil because of the exaggerated character traits you could see in the guests. You could learn a lot about the average person you met, because you could learn to see those character traits, even in a much less extreme form. I've discovered that the "Dr. Phil" effect applies if you put average people in exaggerated circumstances as well.
One thing I've noticed now, and previously in different circumstances, is that the moment two people overstep the conventional friendship lines, it's assumed that it has developed into a romantic relationship.
I have no doubt that this is another product of the modern trial-and-error philosophy of romance. Which goes, "Just keep trialing until you stop erroring, and for goodness sake, don't think to hard!" I do understand how the "don't think to hard" got there. It is a function to remind us that we are only human and can misjudge. If a Christian is really in communion with the Living God, it seems quite superfluous though. If God has an input into your life, and you are open to it, He'll let you know if your being dumb.
This is another demonstration of the way modern thinking has infiltrated the Church of the West. It's all the little things that give us away. In this case the seeming equality between the divorce rates inside and outside the Church is the killing blow.
It's time we began to rethink how we go about things, because right now we're only doing as well as the world, and this is a matter of love, so as children of love we should be pretty good at it.
To be fair, I advocate a trial-and-error philosophy myself, but it's a bit different. Apart from tending to be far more cautious and far more picky it states, "Learn from all your errors, so you know better what you need and want, and for goodness sake, ask God for help and understanding!"
God invented marriage, surly His people should be able to do it properly! Yet we can see ingrained the cultural precept that if you like the look of something you should try it, whatever is at stake. Even if that something is a person and what is at stake is a friendship.
Living with a large number of 18-22 year-olds who have all moved into Sydney at the start of the year in quite bizarre. I always liked watching Dr. Phil because of the exaggerated character traits you could see in the guests. You could learn a lot about the average person you met, because you could learn to see those character traits, even in a much less extreme form. I've discovered that the "Dr. Phil" effect applies if you put average people in exaggerated circumstances as well.
One thing I've noticed now, and previously in different circumstances, is that the moment two people overstep the conventional friendship lines, it's assumed that it has developed into a romantic relationship.
I have no doubt that this is another product of the modern trial-and-error philosophy of romance. Which goes, "Just keep trialing until you stop erroring, and for goodness sake, don't think to hard!" I do understand how the "don't think to hard" got there. It is a function to remind us that we are only human and can misjudge. If a Christian is really in communion with the Living God, it seems quite superfluous though. If God has an input into your life, and you are open to it, He'll let you know if your being dumb.
This is another demonstration of the way modern thinking has infiltrated the Church of the West. It's all the little things that give us away. In this case the seeming equality between the divorce rates inside and outside the Church is the killing blow.
It's time we began to rethink how we go about things, because right now we're only doing as well as the world, and this is a matter of love, so as children of love we should be pretty good at it.
To be fair, I advocate a trial-and-error philosophy myself, but it's a bit different. Apart from tending to be far more cautious and far more picky it states, "Learn from all your errors, so you know better what you need and want, and for goodness sake, ask God for help and understanding!"
God invented marriage, surly His people should be able to do it properly! Yet we can see ingrained the cultural precept that if you like the look of something you should try it, whatever is at stake. Even if that something is a person and what is at stake is a friendship.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Poverty in Thine Eyes
Last night I went to the residents Bible Study which I have not attended for some time. I had been distinctly put off by the new series on poverty. I tend to find that whenever a group of Christians, or for that matter "Christians", gets together and starts talking about a topic of social justice they get very slippery, and begin talking about grand ideals and noble sentiments that they keep as removed from themselves as possible.
It soon turns into a type of committee making snap decisions on what the Church and the West should do. Almost always delegating the hard jobs to people who were unable to attend that night, such as the pastors of major churches, Kevin Rudd, and the Pope.
You see there is a fascinating tendency to make decisions and commitments in order to clear consciences, all the while not really looking into the engineering of the situation, but instead assuming that we "know it all" and that everything we happen to have picked up from watching the news and in general conversation gives us a complete picture.
That's the reason why Bible Studies and the topic of poverty rarely mix well, because Christians have become so devastatingly good at keeping themselves personally removed from the topic beyond making themselves more committed to donating to charity and such, which are actions that allow us to do something about poverty without needing to have contact with it.
Fortunately, I was pleasantly surprised on this occasion. I actually found the discussion quite well informed, indeed, more informed then I was. This was greatly aided by the presence of two overseas students, one of them a girl from Sri Lanka who had simply fascinating information and perspective.
Beyond that it was actually a very self-analyzing session. The question was really asked, "Are we were we need to be?" and that my friends is a question the Church of the West needs to be seriously asking itself.
It soon turns into a type of committee making snap decisions on what the Church and the West should do. Almost always delegating the hard jobs to people who were unable to attend that night, such as the pastors of major churches, Kevin Rudd, and the Pope.
You see there is a fascinating tendency to make decisions and commitments in order to clear consciences, all the while not really looking into the engineering of the situation, but instead assuming that we "know it all" and that everything we happen to have picked up from watching the news and in general conversation gives us a complete picture.
That's the reason why Bible Studies and the topic of poverty rarely mix well, because Christians have become so devastatingly good at keeping themselves personally removed from the topic beyond making themselves more committed to donating to charity and such, which are actions that allow us to do something about poverty without needing to have contact with it.
Fortunately, I was pleasantly surprised on this occasion. I actually found the discussion quite well informed, indeed, more informed then I was. This was greatly aided by the presence of two overseas students, one of them a girl from Sri Lanka who had simply fascinating information and perspective.
Beyond that it was actually a very self-analyzing session. The question was really asked, "Are we were we need to be?" and that my friends is a question the Church of the West needs to be seriously asking itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
