Archive for the 'church' Category

Corp. Inc. Co. Ltd.

Published by Daniel on 7/22/2007 in church, life and provocations. 0 Comments

The Corporation is a book and a movie that takes a look at the idea of the corporation and how it has changed through history. We rented it from the library, but you can watch it on YouTube.

I am not recommending it, no more than I would “recommend” that a person who wants to raise animals should learn about animal biology. That is to say, it is more of a requirement. “Smart Consumer” is a term that is gaining in popularity, and this should be on the course list for the Freshman level. But it is not just required for those who don’t mind seeing themselves as consumers (smart or otherwise), but also those have a nagging feeling that there is something amiss, but can’t quite put their finger on what it is.

Be warned, it is not a cursory look, and the entire film is 23 chapters and well over 2 hours long, but it is worth the time.

Friendly blood

Published by Daniel on 4/19/2007 in church, culture and life. 3 Comments

Over the years we have noticed several distinct values in our lives. There are the usual ones that have to do with a life of faith: honor God, love your neighbor. But then there are those that pertain to the way that we live: simplicity, integrity, peace, and equality. Maybe some of you recognize those values, maybe you don’t. Lately I have been very aware of the value we put on frugality, and decided to look it up on Wikipedia:

Frugality (also known as thrift or thriftiness), often confused with cheapness or miserliness, is a traditional value, life style, or belief system, in which individuals practice both restraint in the acquiring of and resourceful use of economic goods and services in order to achieve lasting and more fulfilling goals. In a money-based economy, frugality emphasizes economical use of money in meeting long term personal, familial, and communal desires.

That pretty much sums up our perspective on money. But the entry goes on:

Sometimes associated with the concept of frugality is a philosophy in which one does not trust, or is deeply wary of, “expert” knowledge, often from commercial markets or corporate cultures, claiming to know what is in the best economic, material, or spiritual interests of the individual.

There are many different spiritual communities that consider frugality a virtue or a spiritual discipline. The Religious Society of Friends and the Puritans are examples of such groups. The basic philosophy behind this is the idea that people ought to save money so that they have more available for others.

Hmm… That first part is scary-accurate. Religious Society of Friends… maybe I should look that up. I did, and found some very insightful material.

Unlike other groups that emerged within Christianity, the Religious Society of Friends has tended toward little hierarchical structure, and away from creeds.

Intriguing. Tell me more.

Many Quakers feel their faith does not fit within traditional Christian categories of Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, but is an expression of another way of experiencing God.

To make a long article short, most of the ways that I have come to understand my faith fit very well with the Quaker/Friends perspective, down to the “Testaments”:

  • * The Peace Testimony
  • * The Testimony of Equality
  • * The Testimony of Integrity
  • * The Testimony of Simplicity

Yes, I did spend most of my childhood in a Friends church, but it is an Evangelical Friends church, where none of these items were evident to me as a kid. Not that they were not values, but that the church was a normal Evangelical church, with normal services, and the occasional baptism and communion.

To find myself a grown man, holding values and views my fore bearers held before me, without overtly being passed down, is a strange and wonderful thing. There is a genetic trait that predisposes me to think or respond a certain way to God. Something that makes me eschew hierarchy. A sense that the truth must be told. A desire for simplicity in all things. A distaste for violence.

Ok, maybe it is not a genetic trait, but it is definitely *something* being passed down. Something that resists.

Lenten observance

Published by Daniel on 2/20/2007 in InOurHouse, church, culture and life. 6 Comments

I am “giving up” Internet browsing at home for lent. I would give it up at work too, but It is sort of what I get paid to do. I just added the rules to my router (recently upgraded to Linux), and I should have it set to allow only non-browsing traffic through to my system here, and the iBook.

Here are my reasons:

  1. I spend too much time doing nothing on the computer
  2. I spend too little time playing with the kids
  3. I spend too little time reading *real* stuff
  4. When I have the Internet to browse, I am too lazy to take pictures
  5. The Internet is not my spiritual guide
  6. God is just waiting for me to pay attention (I really should not waste his time)
  7. I am being a poor example to my family
  8. My muscle is slowly turning into fat
  9. The Internet is mostly a pointless waste of time
  10. It is too easy to stay up too late
  11. My wife is prettier than this stupid screen
  12. I really should get started on my cheese-making hobby
  13. teh internets r stoopid

Practically, this will mean that I will not be checking blogs or doing pointless research at home. I will still have access to email, and chatty type stuff, but no surfing. Fortunately, this blog is actually on my home computer, so I may still post…

Who’s with me?

Provocation #12

Published by Daniel on 2/5/2007 in church, life and provocations. 4 Comments

Christendom is a society of people who call themselves Christians because they occupy themselves with obtaining information about those who a long time ago submitted themselves to Christ’s examination - spiritlessly forgetting that they themselves are up for examination.

Provocations are taken from Provocations: The Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard

Christianist Dominionism

Published by Daniel on 10/20/2006 in church, culture and life. 6 Comments

Lately I have stumbled across a term or two that, although strange at first, seemed to put bones in some of the thoughts and feelings I have had for years. I grew up rather politically unaware. I am not sure if it was intentional on my parents part to not get involved, or if I was just so oblivious to those areas of life that they just passed me by. I would guess the latter. As I matured (at an admittedly rather slow pace), I started to hear political noises, but did not make much sense of them, and we eventually moved overseas, where any American noises were drowned out by local coups, kidnappings, and general strife in that country. Upon returning, my social group was Republican, but I was not sure what that meant. I somehow figured out that it meant “values”, which would assume that the Democrats did not have such things. Then I started to become aware of social causes, and realized that they were mostly pioneered by Democrats. There seemed to be some conflict with the abstract idea of values that the Republicans held, and values Democrats routinely put into practice. Now, this was still in my early adulthood. I still saw nothing wrong with despoiling the Earth, after all, it was all going to burn soon. Over the years I found myself coming back to the connection between Christian values and Republican values. Only in recent years has it occurred to me that there really is not a connection at all. Or, I should say, there should not be.

The principles taught by the Christ have nothing to do with small government, low taxes, and business autonomy. Just as he had no statement about Caesar’s rule of Israel, he makes no statement about the direction of America. So here is where the title of the post comes in. The evangelical church wants to change the world. That sounds good. They want to change it for the better. That is good too. They want to change it through the use of power, “in the name of Jesus Christ!” Hmm… That sounds a little strange. Like it or not, Evangelicalism is involved in a movement, and it’s goal is to bring the world under the dominion of the Christ. Actually, dominionism is a view held by a larger group that includes Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Charismatics, and several other Protestant and Catholic branches. What is interesting to me is the way that, inside the church, we are told that we are in the minority, and we are fighting to keep America wholesome against the hordes of unclean unchurched pagan sin worshipers, and it is a loosing battle. But when you look at the last two elections, the reality is obvious: it is working, and it is not a minority. The other word in the title? Christianist, as in Islamist. This movement toward power by Christians is not itself Christian. If you pay attention to the media, you will hear about the effects of power, no matter the spiritual label. There are historic bad times that were brought on by Christians in power who claimed to be led by God.

Apart from the political aspects, what are the implications of dominionism? What does “under the dominion of Christ” actually mean in everyday life? Does it mean that I dedicate my life to the following of his teachings, and example? Does it mean I surrender all my desires, to be fulfilled through relationship with God? Does it mean giving away all I have to follow this way of life? So far, dominionism does not seem to mean any of those things. It does seem to mean spending more money on things/stuff/junk that is either sold at church, sponsored by a church, written by a pastor or the current favorite conservative pundit. It does mean making sure the world around me knows that I disapprove of their falleness, without admitting to it myself. It does mean accepting every word from a pulpit, assuming that God has put that person there, not politics, charisma, selfish ambition or pride. It does mean family values is a political issue, not something to live out, in real life. It does mean equating democracy and free market economics with Christianity and integrating them with evangelistic outreach.

I agree that our culture is corrupt, but I also think that the church is corrupt and misguided in it’s attempts to force change. The real reason that the whole thing is corrupt is not because there are so many people fighting against Christianity or Christian values in our culture, but because we Christians on the whole aren’t very good Christians. All this talk and political ragging about marriage, and family, but why should anyone believe us? Have we been a good example? What is a good example anyway? Successful, nice house, friendly, good neighborhood? Is that the Christian ideal? That is the American Dream, not God’s desire for us. I am pretty sure he does not care if we have it, but he does care how we think about it, crave it, worship it, and protect it. Why do we think this way? Why do we fret about our crap, manicure our lawns, expand our borders, pray for material blessings, and bless wars? Why do we still have broken families, greedy pastors, and bitter and broken churches?

It could partly be because we believe what we are told. Are we willing to turn off our TVs and radios, and listen to God? Not just for a day or a week, but for a year? Can we stop watching movies, stop reading the newspaper, turn off the music, and turn off the Internet? Can we take a sabbatical from “church” on Sundays? Are we afraid to be alone with our thoughts, and alone with God for that long? All those inputs tell us what to think, what to believe; how can we know which thoughts are our own? Are we just picking up what someone else tossed at us? Can we trust their intent? Maybe true Christian living begins with questioning everything, even our faith. Is it really mine if I have not questioned it? Think of the questions the Christ asked of those around him and those who were following him. Am I willing to let him ask me questions?

Christianist Dominionism? It is dominion over everything but self, in the name of the Christ, who told us to love God, and love our neighbors. Oh, and to pay taxes.

Provocation #9 & 10

Published by Daniel on 6/1/2006 in church, life and provocations. 1 Comment

This puts fire in my belly, and encourages me to pick up my walking stick. The passion to live what I believe feels stifled, the will to act is strong, the fear of the unknown, and the desire to protect my family keeps me in check. But that is where I feel pulled. Is my faith really strong enough to just follow? Just act? I am Peter, sinking in the sea. I have stepped out, and lived a miracle, and now I look down in doubt and call out. I can hear the response.

Christ says: Do according to what I say � then you shall know. Consequently, decisive action first of all. By acting, your life will come into collision with existence, and then you will know the reality of grace. Nowadays we have turned the whole thing around. Christianity has become a world view. Thus, before I get involved I must first justify it. Good night to Christianity! Now doubt has surely conquered. And this doubt can never be halted by reasons, which only nourish doubt. No, doubt can only be halted by imitation. The objections to Christianity may be dismissed with one single comment: Do these objections come from someone who has carried out the commands of Christ? If not, all his objections are nonsense. Christ continually declares that we must do what he says � and then we will know that it is truth.

A conviction is not firmly fixed when everyone presses upon it equally and holds it firm. No, its true stability is revealed when everything is in question.

Provocations are taken from Provocations: The Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard

Routine change

Published by Daniel on 5/11/2006 in church, culture and life. 10 Comments

During our hike on Sunday A asked if we could do this every Sunday. Our kids really like going to church, and that is the main reason that we continue to do so regularly. If we ask them who is in their classes, they only really know the kids that they also go to school with. They do not remember much from the Sunday school, except for the silly songs that they heard sung in a Barney voice. What they really get out of it is the routine, and the chance to see Grandparents. So when A asked if we could make it a routine to go hiking on Sundays, my initial thought was “Sure, that would be great!” Now, several days later, I am still not sure about the place of church attendance in our family. If we continue to go, and we feel that it is not actually a spiritual experience, but our kids are led to believe that this is what it means to be Christian, there will come a time when we will have to explain to them why we don’t mind if they keep going, but we are just going to go for a walk. If we decide not to go, and instead decide to do something else, we will be spending more casual-active time with our kids and have good conversations, but they will not get the standard Sunday school education. I know the bias is obvious. So I guess the debate in my head is more about which is more valuable for my kids to have as a basis for their ideas about living out faith.

It might be pretty clear that we do not have tons of strong relationships at church, otherwise there would be a greater pull. We are actually feeling rather displaced (out of place?) and are realizing that we are still the most “at home” when we are not, or when we are with others who are not “at home”. So in this city, where most every one has lived their entire lives within 50 miles of here, we often feel like strangers in a strange land. When we meet folks who are not from here, especially if they are not from the US, we feel comfortable. In the end it gives us an itch. An itch to keep moving, and to feel at home in the change of scenery. We fight it, but there is still something in us that does not want to fight, but just go.

worship growth

Published by Daniel on 4/3/2006 in church and life. 3 Comments

Corporate/group worship is an odd thing. If I recall correctly (which I will not claim to do), in the Bible it was usually done within a context of a shared experience. After the flood, when God performed some miracle, when the early church met secretly, and that type of thing. We do it as part of a routine, not necessarily because we have experienced God first-hand. I think that group prayer is similar, only more awkward. I have a hard time talking to more than one person at a time, so talking to someone who already knows my heart in ways I cannot express, in front of mostly strangers, or even in front of family, is somehow less than open, and more speechy than heart-to-heart talking. You know you are being listened to and that is difficult to just ignore. I feel the same way when someone is standing next to me while I am having a conversation with someone else. I cannot really express myself because of this observer off to the right, who is listening, but since I am not talking to them, I am not reading their responses to see if they understand. I could just not care, but I do.

…

Growth as a sign of health. Understandable, living things grow when they are thriving. What about organizations? Sure, I think it is true there too. But here is the tough part: what kind of growth? Not all growth is healthy in nature, take mutations, tumors, and cancer for instance. So, in a church, some type of growth is good, yes? What type of growth? I suppose it depends on how you want to measure health.

Measure is the crucial word. We want to measure things, and reason tells us that you cannot claim any objective knowledge about something unless you can measure it. In a church, what does healthy mean? I would think our primary concern would be for healthy relationships with God and each-other. How do we set about measuring that? Here is the rub: you can’t.

Think about it, if someone asked you to measure the health of your marriage, how would you do that? You could measure in years, but that only tells you one thing: endurance. You could measure in how many gifts/fights, but that says nothing about the actual growth, only how volatile it has been. You could come up with a survey, but that is only measuring your perceived relational health at that point in time, and is subject to the wording of the survey, and the last week or so of the relationship. If you combine all those things, you might be able to extrapolate some scale of evidence of relational health, but that is the closest you can get, and it still does not quite tell you anything. Yes, measurable results, and a desire to obtain them, has reduced my spiritual health to numbers. So, if the health of the church cannot really be measured objectively, how do we know if it is healthy? Hmm… good question.

Let’s try a more subjective approach. Are the people in the church known for their love for one another? Are there tales of the ways that those people have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and cared for orphans and widows? This to me would speak of a healthy church, even if it consisted of 20 senior citizens with blue and magenta hair that like organ music and have been meeting in the same building for 50 years. It would not be a dead church. To contrast, a church that grows from 180 people to 1000 in 10 years, but is only known for their music, their new age building, and shocking promotions; is that really growth? All those new-comers to the faith, that find Jesus, but never take Him out past the church doors, do they count toward health? Sure, there are great programs for the kids, and musicians that do wacky stuff, but how would you measure healthy growth there? Offerings? Weekly attendance? What do those have to do with the way we relate to God or each-other?

In the end it comes down to pleasing God. I have heard that phrase all my life, but not until I was a husband did I really understand it. I see how much B wants me to be pleased with her, and I realize that the way her desire to please me makes me feel, is probably similar to how God feels when we desire to please him. I want to protect her, and provide for her every desire. I want her soul to flourish. So far, that type of feeling, and my own desire to please God, has not been able to understand the purpose of church. There are parallels; I want B to expand her influence because I know she is a good woman, and I want her to influence others to also strive to do good. I am sure God desires the same from us. But what is this institution of the church?

Feel free to comment, but if you have something debatable to say, just email me direct.

Provocation #7

Published by Daniel on 3/20/2006 in church, life and provocations. 4 Comments

Teach me, Lord, that the fight of faith is not a fight with doubt, thought against thought, but a fight for character. Enable me to see that human vanity consists in having to understand. Save me from the vanity of not being willing to obey like a child, and of wanting to be like a grown man who has to understand. Help me to realize that he who will not obey when he cannot understand does not, in any essential sense, obey you at all. Make me a believer, a “character man,” who, unreservedly obedient, sees it as necessary for his character’s sake that he must not always understand. Make me willing to believe even when I cannot understand.

Provocations are taken from Provocations: The Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard

Provocation #5

Published by Daniel on 2/5/2006 in church, culture, life and provocations. 3 Comments

Every once in a while, EZ will ask a question that just cannot be answered. I feel the same way when trying to “explain” my faith. I cannot. Anything I offer as explanation seems to reduce, or dilute it. I can offer a history of those who have also found this faith, I can point to explanations that others have written, but I can not offer any more than my experience, which words still seem to dim.

All the objections to Christianity — what are they, after all, to the person who in truth is conscious of being a sinner and who has experienced belief in the forgiveness of sins and in this faith is saved form his sin? One conceivable objection might be: Yes, but is it not still possible for you to be saved in some other way? But how can one reply to this? One cannot. It is just like a person in love. If someone were to say: Yes, but you could perhaps have fallen in love with another — then he must answer: To this I cannot reply, for I know only one thing, that this is my beloved. As soon as the person who is in love tries to reply to this objection, he is by that very fact not a believer.