I stumbled across a very interesting website just recently. It takes various statistics and tries to paint a picture of the whole world if you reduced the population to 100 but kept the same proportions as our present world.
It's fascinating and humbling; depressing yet hopeful.
Check it out here. Select your language (that would be English, most likely!) and watch.
Hatushili
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Putting social justice in perspective
(post)Modern day evangelism
I was browsing through the Resurgence recently and stumbled across a blog post by Ed Stetzer about evangelism. Many voices today are either arguing for or against this or that method of telling people about Jesus. His post shows more balance and serves as a great reminder to us all: there are lots of different people and lots of different contexts out there - share Christ in whatever way is most appropriate to the situation.
I invite you to read his post here.
Hatushili
What's a "Social Conservative"?
As you might have guessed from a cursory reading of my blog, I'm a follower of Christ. I know, big surprise! But what you might also guess about me is that I'm therefore a "social conservative". This is true enough, but perhaps not in quite the way you might think.
It's long bothered me that we, as evangelical Christians, have adopted only some of the really pressing "social" issues of our day as near and dear to our cause. You know the two biggies: pro-life and pro-family. But what about others, arguably just as important? ...
As I see it, there are at least five "social" issues that Christ's followers should be passionately concerned about. In broad categories, these are:
1: Pro-life - I find it appalling that we've killed roughly 48,000,000 (yes, that's 48 million) babies since Roe vs. Wade in 1973. Let me put that number in perspective for you. If you add up the entire population of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio and West Virginia you don't quite reach 48 million. That's how many babies America has killed since the year I was born. That fact shocks my soul. It just can't be. But it is.
Followers of Christ must be pro-life.
2: Pro-family - While I don't often agree with the tactics used by many, I nevertheless find it critically important to support the Biblical concept of family. But don't let that mean "anti-gay" in your mind. The fact that I support traditional marriage is only a small part of what it means to be truly pro-family. I support traditional motherhood, too. I believe that it's critically important for the welfare of children that their mother be with them as much as humanly possible. I'm not saying a woman can't work outside of the home, but that if possible she oughtn't while raising children. But pro-family doesn't stop there, either. What about the training of my children? To be pro-family means to be actively involved in their education and training, regardless of what method (public, private, or homeschool) you use.
Followers of Christ must be pro-family.
3: Pro-environment - Here I may begin to lose some of you, but hear me out. If it's true that God created this entire world and all that's in it, and if it's true that God intended it to be Edenic, and if it's true that God will one day restore this earth to that original Edenic state, and if it's true that God gave mankind the responsibility to care for and nurture it until such time as He works this restoration, then how can His children not be environmentalists? I don't mean "tree-huggers", for sure. But I mean Christians committed to the care of His world as much as we care for all the other blessings He's given us. How often have we heard a Christian refer to (for example) their house as a "blessing from the LORD"? [And it is; I'm not denying that.] That same follower of the Son will take steps to care for his house, won't he? He'll not let the roof fall apart. He'll mow the lawn. He'll make sure the pipes don't leak, and he'll fix them if they do. He'll likely even beautify his house and property.
Why don't we think the same way about this planet?
A follower of Christ must be pro-environment.
4: Pro-justice - The Minor Prophets are, more than anything, written to portray God's judgement against His people for their many sins. But do you know what sin seems most often mentioned? Social injustice. God judges His children because they take no care for the poor and destitute of their society. He scolds them for abusing the weak and powerless. He views their material prosperity with contempt, because it's been built on the backs of downtrodden and maligned people. Christ's followers (not the government) have the primary responsibility to see that these things don't happen in our society today. Support soup kitchens and food pantries. Vote against people and measures that would hurt the already helpless. Be a thoughtful consumer - the most important issue in whether you buy from X or Y isn't always price!
And what about the more massive issues? Katrina. Darfur. International child trafficking. AIDS in Africa. There's plenty of work to do, folks.
A follower of Christ must be pro-justice.
5: Pro-peace - "Pursue peace with everyone" (Hebrews 12:14a). I want to be careful here to distinguish between us as individuals and churches, and us as a nation. There is a difference, though perhaps not as great as some would make it. Nevertheless, the principle is clear: whenever possible, peace is a better option than conflict. Do I have a "right" to be in conflict with my neighbor over the bush on the property line that hangs into my yard? I suppose the American court system might say so, but I chose peace. Do you have a "right" to avoid your sister because she's done your family wrong? Chose peace. Do we as churches have a "right" to be in conflict with the local skater kids that we sometimes find in the parking lot? Chose peace.
Whenever possible, chose peace. This often requires active pursuit, as the verse in Hebrews mentions.
A follower of Christ must be pro-peace.
---
So what exactly is a "social conservative"? If you mean what the rank of file of America thinks when you say that phrase, I want no part of it. They tend to think "social conservative" means "anti-abortion, anti-gay, no fun and holier-than-thou".
So in that sense I'm not a social conservative. And frankly, I'm not really bothered by that. I'd much rather be known as a Christian that's devoted to these five social issues than merely as a "social conservative". I'm not saying I've got it all figured out and live these principles fully and wholly - I'm a sinner just like you. But these are the social principles I feel passionately about.
What about you?
Hatushili
Friday, August 10, 2007
Finding balance in an off-kilter world
As I've been working through the process of sending resumes to churches, reading online search ads, reading church websites (I'm sure it's more than 100 by now), etc... I've spent a lot of time thinking (and praying, but not enough) about the situation that many of these churches find themselves in...
In a word: unbalance. They've lived without a pastor for months, sometimes years. They were accustomed to having a leader of leaders, but then suddenly (and for varied reasons) they don't. They do fine for a while, especially those that had a good system of leadership training in place. But like it or not, they're rather off-kilter.
It's like waking up one morning with a stiffness in your neck that only allows you to function if you tip your head ever so slightly to the right. At first you rejoice that you've discovered a way of coping with this situation. And as the day goes on, you almost forget that your head is slightly tilted. When you reach the end of the day, you reflect back upon it and fall asleep hoping your neck will be better in the morning.
But if your in the situation of most churches seeking a pastor, your neck is no better in the morning. Hopefully it's no worse either, but it's definitely no better. And so you move through the days and weeks and months in this slightly not-normal position. You get used to it. But then it simply gets wearisome and you begin to long for the day you can keep your head straight up and down.
I've been a part of churches that went through the search for a pastor. I've had good friends and family who've gone through the same. Truth be known, most of us likely have some association with this condition. It's tolerable, but no fun. So how do you get through it?
Faith and patience.
Now I'm looking at the situation from the other side, but I'm beginning to feel the same way - slightly off-kilter. I'm doing fine; I enjoy the research time I have these days, I'm still getting used to not being a seminary student anymore, I love reading through the websites of all these searching churches. But for all my "fine", my head is still tipped ever so slightly off-kilter. Each of us was made to serve Him, and each in varied ways. I was made to serve Him as a pastor, but yet I find myself without a church. It's tolerable, but not fun. So who do I get through it?
Faith and patience.
LORD, I pray you might quickly bring my path together with the church family out there that you have ordained. But in the meantime, give us all faith and patience.
Hatushili
Thursday, August 9, 2007
On Dispensationalism
As I mentioned here, one of the fundamental differences between denominations/movements has to do with systematic theology. For those of you not terribly familiar with Dispensationalism, I thought I'd periodically offer small bits of information. This is the first of such periodic installments...
One thing that separates Dispensationalists from others has to do with the birth of the Church. By Church (with the capital C) I mean, of course, the entire Body of Christ - past, present and future. And I, as a Dispensationalist, take the birth of the Church to have happened on the day of Pentecost, after Jesus' resurrection.
This may strike some of you as odd. Perhaps you've always been told that the Church now is more or less the same thing as Israel was in the Old Testament. Or perhaps you thought the Church began with Christ.
Here is the basic reasoning behind Dispensationalism's claim that the Church did not start until the second chapter of Acts:
1. The Church is the body of Christ - Eph 1:22-23
2. The means of entrance and incorporation in the Body of Christ is by the baptism of the Holy Spirit - Cor.12:13
3. The Church was still future when Christ used the word for the first time in the Bible - Matt 16:18
4. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was (obviously!) still future when Jesus predicted such in Acts 1:5
5. In Acts 11:15-16 Peter identifies the filling of the Spirit of Acts 2:4 as simultaneous with the first occurrence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in specific fulfillment of Christ’s words of Acts 1:5
6. Therefore, since the baptism of the Holy Spirit first occurred at Pentecost and baptism of the Holy Spirit is the means of entrance into the Church, the Church began at Pentecost
Hatushili
Forgiveness
Like you, I know that forgiveness is a good thing. A healthy thing. A necessary and commanded thing. I, perhaps like you, know all of that intellectually.
But sometimes experience doesn't line up with knowledge.
Without wanting to get into any of the details, let me just say that there was a person in my life that I needed to forgive. Badly. And the worse part is that it didn't even occur to me that I needed to forgive this person until recently. The LORD brought it to my attention during a time of prayer.
As you may have guessed from my use of the past tense above, I have recently chosen to forgive this individual, and I'm better for it. I almost literally feel as if a weight has been lifted from me - a weight it hardly even realized I was bearing.
Whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven will also forgive you your sins. Mark 11:25
Hatushili
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Expanding our horizons
I've been struck lately by how little Christians of one theological stripe know about Christians of other theological stripes. I guess my perspective is unusual, having spent so many years in seminary. But I just sort of assumed that most Christians had some kind of basic framework to understand different theological traditions. In case you don't, let me explain a bit...
In what follows, I'll list three of the major categories of difference of opinion, then give some examples of different traditions/denominations that hold these various views. This is not intended to be a hard and fast rule, nor is it exhaustive - I'm painting with a broad brush here.
Let's take personal salvation, for example. As most know, there are two dominant evangelical ways of looking at this issue: you either believe in what's called 'eternal security' or you don't. There are variations on the theme, but generally some evangelicals are of the mind that once a person has truly accepted Christ as their saviour, they are assured of their salvation. Others, however, believe that a person could conceivably commit certain sins (or certain amounts of sin, etc...) and thereby lose the salvation Jesus gave them.
Eternal security (generally): Baptist, Bible, Brethren, Assembly of God
No eternal security (generally): Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Nazarene
Here's another major difference: systematic theology. There are (again) two primary ways of viewing the whole nature of the Bible, especially the distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament. There are those (called Dispensationalist, and they come in at least three flavors) that take a more literal view of the Old Testament and see it as applying directly to Israel (not the church). There are those (in the fold of Covenant Theology) that believe the Church has spiritually inherited the promises once made literally to Israel. What's the difference? Well, among other things, this accounts for why some baptize babies and others don't.
Dispensationalism (generally): Baptist, Bible, Brethren
Covenant Theology (generally): Methodist, Lutheran, Christian Reformed
What about worship? There are two broad categories here: high church and low church. High church folk believe worship gatherings should be more reverent, quiet, and organized. They tend to come to these gatherings dressed well. Their pastors/ministers often wear robes or collars. Think stained glass, high pulpit and dark wood. Low church folk, on the other hand, view worship gatherings as more celebratory. They tend to come to these gatherings 'as they are'. Their pastors/ministers likely only wear a ties, if that.
High church: Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian
Low church: Methodist, Baptist, Mennonite
---
Hopefully I've not insulted any one's intelligence - I just find that some of these broad categories aren't very well known across denominational boundaries. I meet lots of people who are only familiar with their own tradition and haven't a clue about others.
So what about you? What other categories have you noted (there are plenty!)? What differences strike you as interesting or curious?
Hatushili
Monday, August 6, 2007
I'll take one solid aluminum external fixator, please
It's official - Hannah finally had the external fixator (doctor-speak for 'turnbuckle') removed from her forearm. It was a very long day (driving to Indianapolis and back again), but well worth it all. Hannah will get to remove the last of the bandages in a few days and at last she'll have full use of her arm again. Thanks for those that prayed - the doctors involved have been nothing short of shocked that she healed so quickly and so thoroughly.
Hatushili
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Both/And
In life you often have to choose one or the other. You either take this job or that job. You either name your child this or that. You either join this church or that church.
But sometimes you get to have both/and.
One of the most perfect inventions of all time, for example, is KFBell - both Kentucky Fried Chicken and Taco Bell under one roof! Or, slightly more seriously, you might get both medical insurance and a Christmas bonus.
Both/and is a good thing, but often a rare thing.
I've got a situation in my life and I'm not sure I can have both/and...
As I have been spending the last few months searching for the church that the LORD wants me to serve at, I've had plenty of opportunities to answer questions from pastoral search committees. Some pretty basic ones: "describe your conversion experience". Some pretty interesting ones: "list the last five books you've read". I've had phone calls, letters, and more email than should be allowable by law! But through it all, I'm increasingly finding myself torn over one particular both/and.
I am a certified Fundamentalist on many doctrinal levels. I'm a Dispensationalist (and not even a Progressive one at that!). I will die for the doctrine of inerrancy. I do not believe the "sign gifts" of the early church are applicable today. I do not believe women should serve as pastors/elders. I believe in a literal Tribulation and Millennium. I've taken 4 semesters of Hebrew and 9 semesters of Greek. In many ways, I'm as conservative as they come.
But I'm also very sympathetic to the crisis of Postmodernity. In fact, I identify myself as more postmodern than modern. I'm interested in the historic spiritual disciplines (like silence, for example). I'm vastly more missional than traditional in my view of how we "do" church. I'm perfectly comfortable with mystery - in fact, I rather like it. I recognize that there simply must be more to the Gospel than merely a message of personal salvation. I think we must do a better job of caring for the creation God left in our charge. In many ways, I'm a liberal (at least from the perspective of my IFCA and GARB friends).
The fact that I'm even willing to interact with the emerging church, postmoderinty, missional thinking, and newer philosophies of ministry scares many churches away from seriously considering me.
The fact that I believe doctrine is important, that doctrinal distinctives cannot and should not be shoved under the carpet, that particular hermeneutical principles are worth fighting for, and that Greek and Hebrew are highly valuable languages to understand makes me anathema to others.
But I want both/and on this one. I want both orthodoxy and orthopraxis. I want both good doctrine and good community. I want both serious inquiry and a willingness to stand on the shoulders of those that came before us. I want to be both relevant and Biblical.
I want both/and.
I refuse to play the "game" of making myself out to be something I'm not. I guess that's the postmodern in me coming to the fore - I've gotta keep it real!
Pray for me, guys. I've said many times that my present path is one of faith and patience. Right now I need a good healthy infusion of both in my life; I'm starting to feel a bit weary...
But I refuse to give up on both/and.
Hatushili
Saturday, August 4, 2007
More thoughts on Hermeneutics
As I've said before, the issue of hermeneutics (principles for Bible interpretation) is one over which I often part company with my emerging church friends. For those of you interested, I thought I'd discuss the two main (broad brush) methods of interpreting the Bible on the landscape right now. If you've ever wondered why some people interpret the Bible so very differently than others, this post will help you begin to create a framework for answering that question...
There are lots and lots of hermeneutical systems out there; I don't want to give the impression that there are only two. But in general terms, the systems out there can be classified in one of two ways:
Reader Response: This basic system of interpreting the Bible states that what is important in a given passage of Scripture is what the text means/says to you. That is, the response of the present-day reader is what is most important. This is not the same as asking the "how does this verse apply to my life" question. This is a system that believes the message of the Word of God will necessarily vary from reader to reader; God uses His power to guide each individual reader of Scripture to their individual interpretation. So an adherent of this system will freely allow that verse A can mean X to one person and Y to another and Z to a third, etc... Sometimes these different "meanings" can even be contradictory, or at least appear to be.
Here's a good example. I read a blog post recently defending the position that women can serve as pastors. This lady (a female pastor) made several points supporting her position, then came to the issue of Paul's view based upon his New Testament writings. She writes, "You know, I had the classes in seminary on the 'texts of terror' so often used to keep women from leadership in the church. Paul takes both sides of the issue, depending on where you look."
I presume that most people realize this is a logical impossibility. [Man, do I sound terribly Modern!] From my vantage point, it's simply not possible that Paul simultaneously believed that woman both can and cannot serve as pastors. He had to hold one view or the other, right? Or perhaps some third view. But he couldn't have held those two contradictory views at the same time, not if he was rational.
Reader response theory has little trouble rectifying this. What's important, they say, is how you (as the reader) understand Paul. So, most likely, this lady would simply note that people like me understand Paul one way and she understands him another. No problem.
Authorial Intent: Under this large umbrella sit all the people (myself included) that believe the key to understanding Scripture is to first decipher why the original (human) author wrote it in the first place. So you approach a given text trying to learn as much about the context and language as possible. [This is why I am so adamant that seminaries are doing a disservice to students by increasingly taking away their exposure to Greek and Hebrew, incidentally.] In the case of women in the pastorate, you try to honestly answer the "why did Paul write those verses?" question first. Then, and only then, can you begin to decipher what Paul's position was - assuming you believe he had a position on the issue (which I do, personally).
Since I've started down the "female pastors" road, let's use the example a bit more. Virtually everyone that supports women in the pastorate (and especially those that hold a reader response view) turns to Galatians 3:28 for support:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female – for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
An interpreter using reader response thinking will ask, "what does this verse mean to you?".
An interpreter using authorial intent thinking will ask, "Why did Paul write these words?".
Here's why this is important: nothing in the context of Galatians implies that Paul is even thinking about women in the pastorate. Not one verse. Nothing. Galatians was not written to address this issue. Paul is talking about people as Christ followers - it doesn't matter whether your skin is one colour or another, whether your male or female, or what your station in life is in terms of being a Christian.
But the reader response interpreter says none of that matters. Consequently, some of them also use this text to support complete egalitarianism within marriage and society. Please note that nothing in Galatians gives us even the slightest clue that Paul intended to address those issues either. But according to reader response hermeneutics, that fact doesn't matter.
So set aside this particular example for a moment and chew on these general questions: does it, or does it not, matter why a given passage of the Bible was written in the first place? If we can know, is it helpful to understand how the original audience of a given passage of the Bible understood it? Does original context determine meaning or one's personal, present context determine meaning?
For my part, I maintain that it does matter, it is helpful, and original context is determinative. My impression of most emerging church people is that they would disagree.
This is yet another reason why I consistently call myself "emerging-friendly", but not "emerging".
Hatushili
Friday, August 3, 2007
Vacation!
No, I have not fallen off the face of the planet.
We've just recently returned from our family vacation. It was outstanding, and if you'll permit me I'll bore you with a few pictures...
We travelled up to Michigan's Upper Peninsula and rented a cabin on Drummond Island. What follows is the bulletin board version of our vacation:
This one was taken at Whitefish Point.
Here's a view of Lower Tahquamenon Falls (officially my very most favourite space on Earth, at least that I've actually been too!).
This is the view 40 feet under the surface of Kitch-iti-kipi (a.k.a. Big Spring). Yes, those are trout with sand on their backs! And yes, the water is that clear.
This is Fort Michilimackinac. Notice the bridge to the U.P. in the background. 
These rifles are being fired on the grounds of Fort Mackinac. This is the fort on Mackinac Island - the one above is at the very tip of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. 
This is my oldest daughter (Rebekah) preparing to help in the saw pit at Mill Creek. That's pronounced "crick", in case you didn't know! 
This is the freighter American Integrity just about ready to head downbound at the Soo Locks. This ship is 1,000' feet long! It's one of the biggest on the Great Lakes. Oh, and it has 14,000 horsepower. 
This is Glen Cove, on the east side of Drummond Island. The road to get to this cove was ... amusing, to say the least. It was clearly designed for ATVs and snowmobiles, not 15-passenger vans, but we made it. And the view was worth the dust and bumps, don't you think?
This is the cabin we rented. It's on the west side of Drummond Island, facing the passageway that all the lake freighters go through on their way to Sault Saint Marie. 
Consequently, we got views like this one every single day, at least ten times a day! I couldn't make out the name of this vessel - the last few days we were there were pretty hazy. Mom absolutely loved sitting in the screen room and watching the ships go by. I know Winston (my dear but departed father-in-law) would've loved them even more. 
It's probably only fitting that I leave you with a view of the sunset we got to watch from the deck every evening. It was truly a wonderful vacation. We're grateful to the God who made these beautiful places and made us able to go and see them together.
Hatushili
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
