No offense to people like "the Reverend Billy Graham" or others like him, but why oh why is "reverend" still an acceptable title for pastors?!
I don't really care much how people refer to me. As a Children's Pastor, I get all kinds of names. Some of my kids call me Pastor Nathan, some just Pastor. Some call me Mr. Nathan, others Mr. Hyde. A few simply call me Nathan. Their parents are much the same: though most just call me Nathan, some call me Pastor Nathan and a few simply Pastor.
No one, however, calls me "Reverend". There's a good reason for that - I've specifically asked that no one use that title...
There are two reasons for this preference. First, I'm no more "revered" than anyone else. Our standard is Jesus, not any person running around on His earth. Like you, I'm a sinner saved by grace. I just happen to be a pastor.
Second, it reinforces that very misguided notion that the profession of pastor is more "revered" than any other profession. There's nothing more holy, more godly, more special, more important, more ... anything about being a pastor. We are each called to service; mine is to serve as a pastor. Yours isn't. So what!
Okay, back to the impetus for this post. As you saw in the image at the top, I received a piece of mail today addressed to "Reverend Nathan Hyde". I assume it was so addressed because it came from Operation Christmas Child, a ministry led by the son of "Reverend Billy Graham". I assure you that I did not ask to be addressed as Reverend!
I type this post with the sincere hope that I'll never see another piece of mail addressed to "Reverend Nathan Hyde".
Hatushili
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Reverend?!?
Christian postmodernity ... ?
Most of you know that I've been beating the drum for a Christian understanding of cultural postmodernity for a long time now. But I think I've discovered that I'm either irrelevant, misguided, or cutting-edge...
What am I talking about? I'm beginning to think that few people are talking about postmodernity in specific cultural terms. Evidence: Google "cultural postmodernity" (with the quotes) and a few interesting things happen.
1) A post of mine is third on the list! I'm not that relevant, folks! So my presence in the top three likely indicates that my topic is not all that relevant...
2) The majority of the posts are from a spiritual/Christian perspective. If only followers of Jesus are using this term, it's well on it's way to being a part of some Christian subculture - the very last thing I want to be a part of!
3) None of the entries are really popular level. If I'm merely a part of some "intellectual" conversation, I'm not sure I'm on the right track...
So I'm left with the initial conclusion that I'm either wrong (there's no such thing as cultural postmodernity), misguided (there is such a thing, but everyone else is using different language) or cutting edge (soon everyone will be a part of my virtual self-conversation).
Right now I'm not sure which it is... but I'm still working on it. I'll keep you posted, eh?
Hatushili
As some of you may know, I've had a MySpace account for a while now. For reasons unclear to me, that social networking site has gone more or less dormant amongst my various friends. There's only one reason left for me to check that account - a former student in Maryland. If not for her, I'd likely give up on it altogether.
But recently my wife - my extremely technically-challenged wife - setup a Facebook account and is enjoying it immensely. I've therefore started one myself. For those that are on Facebook, you may view it here.
If you're not on Facebook, thus far I highly recommend it. It's simple to join and maintain the page - go for it!
Hatushili
Monday, October 20, 2008
The stuff that matters most
I continue to be amazed at the things we - meaning follower of Jesus - make an issue of. One of the things I most appreciate about my home church is that we've zeroed in on simply six "center circle" issues and work hard not to allow other things to be divisive.
Anyway, I've recently stumbled across a few very silly stereotypes that still continue to linger in our culture...
A good friend of mine, who happens to be a pastor, takes some time once in a while to visit the local bar and strike up friendships and conversations. You guessed it - one of the patrons recently expressed shock that a pastor would drink a beer! Are we still fighting that one!?! For reasons I'll not disclose here, I am a complete abstainer from alcohol. But it's not possible to argue that everyone must be an abstainer. Thus saith the Bible: don't get drunk, yo!
Another: I've had an ongoing discussion with a friend that thinks school-age students at Christian schools should have a hair code. Not too long, not too wild ... you know the stereotype. Part of his argument is that plenty of professions have dress codes that include standards for hair. I agree, but I'm also pretty sure that school-age students don't get that, and that they don't care right now (nor do they need to, in my opinion). More to the point, doesn't having codes like that reinforce all the wrong stereotypes about Christians?
If we're going to live as truly authentic follower of Jesus in our culture, we can no longer afford to reinforce all the wrong images. I'm certainly not arguing that we adopt all the culture has to offer, but where culture is just culture (and not immoral) why not?
Be the real you! If you really like rock music and long hair, listen to rock music and wear long hair ... and as you live your life be sure to talk about the Saviour.
If you really like emo and bald heads, listen to emo and shave your head ... and as you live your life be sure to talk about the Saviour.
You can't fake these things. As I've noted before, postmoderns have their "poser" sensors set to turbo! You be you. I'll be me. Together we'll authentically witness to His grace, His power and His desire to transform this world.
Hatushili
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Stranger things have happened!
As you may have noticed, I installed a traffic feed near the bottom of my blog. It shows me where the various visitors to my blog have come from. It's been fascinating to watch the locations that pop up, to say the least.
Using the feed, I can tell when certain of you visit my blog, since some of you virtually never leave comments! So, for example, when my former student from Maryland visits, I see "Baltimore, MD" show up on the list. I like having this feed - it amuses me!
Having said all that, I had to share a few facts from my feed...
Interesting fact #1: Some of you have apparently figured out that I have this feed and have taken steps to mask your identity. Periodically I see simply "United States" on the list. Not sure why you'd care that much, but I respect your right to privacy.
Interesting fact #2: I had absolutely no response to my post awhile back on Jesus as High Priest and King. Then a strange thing started to happen. I found my feed showing hits to that particular page, over and over again. Hits from South Africa (at least twice, from two different towns). Hits from all over the US. Hits from places where I've never visited (and therefore made friends that now read this blog). Curious. But not as curious as ...
Interesting fact #3: I had a visitor from Mongolia! Seriously. The image posted at the beginning of this blog entry is a screenshot from it. Some dude from Mongolia found my post on Jesus as High Priest and King via Google. I had to Google "Ulaanbaatar" to figure out that it was in Mongolia, incidentally.
All of this leads me to think that perhaps I should finish the posts on Jesus as High Priest...
A penny for anyone's thoughts or comments.
Hatushili
Saturday, September 20, 2008
God's Universe
I finally finished one of the books on my reading list! It's remarkable how little reading I've been able to get to year...
I'd love to give you a full review of God's Universe, but it's hardly worth reviewing. The author (Owen Gingerich) supposes himself balanced on the subject of science and creation. But he consistently uses little phrases here or there that make it clear he's not. Not that I am either, mind you - it's just that I make no pretense of so being!
In the end, this author basically continues to argue for the same old tired (and thoroughly Modern) "category error": Science and Creation/Design are not in the same category, so it's unfair to compare them or allow one to slip into the realm of the other. Ironic that he points out the common understanding during Copernicus' time - it was held that something could be mathematically true but not really true (in this case, the heliocentric view of the universe) - without realizing he's committing the same error. Either God created the universe of it evolved. Either the text of Genesis is true or it isn't. I certainly understand there are ambiguities here; issues that need addressing. I'm not arguing that this is an easy subject! But Gingerich seems to want it both ways: something can be "scientifically" true (for him, macro evolution) but perhaps not "really" true (he still wants to believe in an omniscient Creator).
If this is the "balanced" view of the Science/Creation debate, I guess I'll have to remain off-kilter!
Hatushili
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Dude, this is just ridiculous!
Okay. Deep breath. I rarely rant on this blog. But I feel compelled. Here goes.
The local metro newspaper in my area is horrible. Just horrible. This is nowhere more evident than in their "Faith" section. I scan the section most weeks - the stories are often trite and more or less without significance. Apparently that's the kind of stuff they think a reader of the "Faith" section desires. But I digress...
You simply must read this ridiculous article. Read the article first, then continue on with my post (if you like)...
Let's start with Mr. Abernathy's initial statement: "Many just don't use the word 'god'. It's been a word that, no matter how you use it in a sentence, it means a thousand different things, and you can't tie it to anything."
Wow. So the time-honoured argument about who/what determines the meaning of a given word has been reduced to this?! Try this one, Mr. Abernathy: God sent His Son to earth as the baby Jesus. Am I to believe that there are "a thousand different" ways that "God" might be meant in that sentence? Really? A thousand?! Obviously Mr. Abernathy is as fond of hyperbole as I am, so I'll cut him a bit of slack. But he clearly believes that the meaning of the term 'god' is so nebulous and individually-determined that we shouldn't even bother trying to agree on any aspect of him/her/it.
His example of saying "God loves you" to a homeless dude and then claiming that such a sentence is "meaningless" is absurd. That very simple sentence can be understood by virtually anyone. Failure to grasp it's meaning would lead to an obvious response - questions. Questions such as "Who is God?", or "what is love". There aren't many additional questions that need answering to understand "God loves you", eh? But apparently homeless folk are simply and only seeking material goods, not religious and/or metaphysical hope. How silly of me to forget that the material always takes precedence!
How about this beauty: "Religion is about morality"? Seriously?! So first we can't settle on even the most basic definition of 'god', but no we're to believe that the very essence of 'religion' is to be defined as merely 'morality'? If we can't settle on a meaning for 'god', why should I have any confidence in Mr. Abernathy's definition of 'religion'? In short, I shouldn't.
The article gets better... The reporter than makes a statement that begs for explanation, but receives none. She claims that Unitarian Universalism has "roots" that are "Judeo-Christian". So do the Jehovah's Witnesses. So do the Mormons. But that doesn't excuse the author from explaining that sentence at least a bit. "Roots" seems to indicate a still-existing connection. This is, of course, no longer true of the UU "church". Apparently that little tid-bit of information was too much to include in the article. Or, more likely, the author believes that UU actually is still connected to Christianity. That's either ignorance (which indicates a lack of research) or lack of intelligence.
But wait; there's more! Next we read that Matt Casper (a self-avowed atheist) is agitated with churches. In fact, he has some advice for them - "a church should be about action". Well said; as a follower of Jesus I couldn't agree more. But then this: "If all who claimed to be Christian actually did what Jesus asked, there'd be no poverty or war or disparity of income".
More deep breathing. Okay...
So I'm to believe the central meaning of Christ's church is embodied in equal distribution of income?!? The ol' "Jesus as Communist" bit again? Wow. How about the fact that Jesus told us (in Matt. 26:11, for example) that we would always have the poor? What about John's regular references throughout Revelation to "war"? Sorry, Mr. Casper - your vision of Jesus is clearly faulty. It would be nice if pastors like Mr. Abernathy would attempt to introduce, or even to model, Jesus to you. But alas, religion is about morality...
Then there's the sad case of Mrs. Powers. She "grew up in a liberal Presbyterian church, but her father was always a skeptic". Further evidence of the utter failure of mainline liberal churches - Mrs. Powers has been with the UU for years now.
Here's perhaps the biggest reason UU works in America: "Don't let other people define religion for you". Apparently, "other people" even includes Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, etc... Sad.
She's also convinced that "the concept of God is an attempt to describe [the need for something other to be in charge]". It's the tired old 'God as a crutch' thinking. If He's merely for the relief of our own self-inflicted angst, I for one want no part in Him.
And my favourite line from the article: "I really enjoy life and try to be thankful...". But, Mrs. Powers, to whom are you thankful? This is one verb that requires an object. Apparently the object of one's thanks does not matter in the UU "church".
Rant completed. I'll now return to my regularly scheduled blogging. Sorry to have bothered ya'll.
Hatushili
Stuck on Ooze
I pretty much can't stand the theology of guys like Spencer Burke. Yet I find myself routinely reading posts on The Ooze. Why? Part of the answer, I suppose, is that I enjoy a good laugh now and then - some of the arguments made on that site are so ludicrous as to be laughable!
But I find some gems now and then, too. Seriously. I hate to admit it, but once in a while the Ooze really does post something challenging. Usually not; once in a while.
Today's reading of The Ooze is a case study in this truth. This article is utterly ridiculous; this one is actually good.
If you don't read the Ooze, I would encourage you to do so now and again. But keep in mind that you'll need the ability to sift through a lot of garbage to get to the good.
Hatushili
Monday, September 1, 2008
The fusion of two passions
Those of you that know me very well know that I'm passionate about a number of things. High on that list (and in no particular order) would be 'environmental stewardship' and 'outdoor power equipment'. Sound contradictory to you? Read on...
For whatever silly reason, the radical fringe of the environmental movement has labelled outdoor power equipment (OPE) as "evil", sometimes literally! From lawn mowers to leaf blowers, groups like the Sierra Club and others characterize the OPE industry as a part of the problem, not the solution.
I have attempted to moderate my passion for environmental stewardship with an equal passion for the plight of the human race. Let's be honest, OPE makes people's lives much easier. Don't get me wrong - it can be overdone. There's no sense firing up a chainsaw, for example, just to cut off a single 2" branch. There's also no sense mowing your lawn every 3 or 4 days. But that doesn't change the fact that most OPE is a help to humanity.
The OPE industry is doing its part in working toward environmental stewardship, too. This happens in two primary ways; one obvious, the other not so.
First, and most obviously, the OPE industry has been subjected to more and more stringent emissions standards. OPE of today is vastly less polluting than machines of only 10 years ago. Two-cycle lawnmowers, arguably the single greatest polluter in the OPE industry, have been outlawed. Small two-cycle engine (think string trimmers and leaf blowers) are constantly being improved for emissions efficiency. [The interested reader will consider Stihl's four-mix engines.] Carburetors are now being manufactured that are difficult (at best!) for the average consumer to bugger with - making it much less likely that they'll accidentally run their equipment too rich and therefore too polluting. Catalytic mufflers? Got 'em. Fuel injection? Showing up more and more. Clean two-strokes? Check. Add all of this to the simple fact that the entire OPE industry makes up perhaps 5% of total emissions in this country and I think you'll agree that OPE is doing its part to be more green.
But there's a second way that OPE contributes to environmental stewardship. Taking better care of your green spaces is not only aesthetically pleasing, it actually helps care for the environment.
For example, one fairly well known example is forests. Whether it's the massive timber stands we have out West or the small plot of woods in the back of your property, stands of trees do better when cared for (as opposed to leaving them "natural"). Maintained stands of trees are less susceptible to forest fires, less susceptible to the rapid spread of disease, less desirable for vermin, etc... Property owners that keep their woods "natural" are generally missing out on plenty of benefits.
Another example: harvesting timber or firewood from tree stands helps reduce emissions. By felling and using the larger trees in a stand, the tree canopy is opened up to allow more small trees a chance at rapid growth (and therefore absorption of tons of carbon).
I recently read of one more example; one that just about all of us can contribute to: mowing your lawn. The radical environmentalists regularly moan about the evils of gasoline powered lawnmowers. Scan the recent marketing trends in mowers - electric and/or reel-type mowers are all the rage because they're "green"! But recent research reveals a very compelling case for proper lawn care, even when that requires a gas-powered mower. OPE Magazine recently reported a study that shows well-managed turf grass sequesters four times more carbon than the engine powering the mower emits. That's because well-managed turf grass is in constant growth mode, and when it's growing it's absorbing carbon.
So there you have it: some of the basics behind how I can maintain these two passions simultaneously. Like so much else in life, it's really all about balance, eh?
Hatushili
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The latest trend?
I often marvel at how silly we can be. By "we" I mean followers of Jesus in America. It seems we're always looking for the latest trend, the newest methodology, the best data to support our positions.
I came across another one of these sorts of tidbits just a moment ago. Well intended, for sure. But at least a tad bit silly.
It seems that some people with more money than I commissioned a study to find out some things about why people join churches and why they leave them. The full article is here, for your reading enjoyment.
The results? In a nutshell, people like friendly churches. Even more profound, people tend to like churches where they can develop strong relationships. More marvelous still, "younger" (read: culturally postmodern) people tend to value these attributes even more than others!
I must say, I'm shocked. I had no idea that pomos would be more interested in real community than most anything else. Seriously? Wow.
Okay, I'm done with the dripping saracasm. But let's think about this for just a second: if we're analyzing this data from a viewpoint of efficacy (which clearly this article is), aren't we missing the point? Is it really in the best interest of churches to study "what works" and not merely "what's right"? We end up with merely the "latest trend in research" kind of thinking... Sad.
The point is this: the Church of Jesus Christ must be founded upon relationships because it was designed by the Creator to be founded upon relationships. It is first and foremost about our relationship to Him - notice I said our relationship to Him, not merely my relationship to Him. We are to be a body, a family, a community ... not a collection of individuals.
Data or no data, local churches should be striving toward authentic community because it's the right thing to do. If articles like these make people hop on a trend-setting bandwagon only to switch to the next big thing a year or two down the road, we've missed the point. We've been given the blueprint for what a healthy church looks like (hint: it looks like a healthy family); let's just focus on that, eh?
Hatushili
