Liturgy

An old college friend posted this on Facebook and I think it's right on.  Although I think N's (or is it T's?) can feel constricted or constrained by liturgy, when we understand it the way that Jonathan describes it, then it feels much more natural and comforting and important. 

We have little songs for our kids, too.  Nathan has a song and the girls share a song, and though we don't sing them much any more, I make a point of singing them on the kids' birthdays after telling their birthing story (a tradition as I put them to bed on their birthday night). 

Jonathan on Liturgy from Journey Training on Vimeo.

I know you mean well...

I'm reading through an old notebook that I kept in 1996.  I just hit some scribbles that I thought I'd share.  Have you ever felt this way?

the love you're giving to me
is the wrong blood type.
i know you mean well,
but it's killing me.

The Earth Is the Lord's - a Bible study written by yours truly

Ever since we arrived at our little church here in Fort Collins, we've been an anomaly. We're reformed, just like the rest of the congregation, but we're environmentalists. We've studied the Bible for years, but we sometimes come to different conclusions on what it's saying. (Our Sunday school lesson two summer's ago on taking the Lord's name in vain is a perfect case in point. It was an entire hour in which I felt like no matter what Rob or I said, we might as well have been in a sound-proof box because no one seemed to hear us. To my great delight, you can now read some of the things that Rob and I were saying in our new pastor's blog (even though he wasn't in that Sunday school class to hear us say those things).)

Though Rob and I will bring up our differences of interpretation on occasion (like when we explain why we bike to church with our family when we can, rather than drive), we try not to make a big deal out of it.  But in March of 2007, I decided that there was one difference of opinion that, while I still didn't want to make a big deal out of it, I did want to address.  After an unexpected outburst about how silly global warming is, I felt compelled to address the issue--not global warming in particular, but the whole topic of the environment and the role of Christians regarding it. 

So I started reading books. I read saving God's green earth, by tri robinson.  I thought it made a very well reasoned case as to why Christians should be concerned about the environment and so I recommended it to the session (which is the ruling group for the church -- the pastor and the elders). All I ever heard back from the pastor was that the elders had quickly shot the idea down. But he suggested that perhaps we could read Francis Schaeffer's book, Pollution and the Death of Man, instead. So I read through that and, while I liked the book, it seemed rather thin compared to the other book I had already started reading at that point, Redeeming Creation: The Biblical Basis for Environmental Stewardship, which took Schaeffer's same ideas but fleshed them out much better. But I knew that I couldn't suggest that book to the session because it talked too specifically about issues and I didn't want to go there until we could all agree that the Bible had something to say on the topic first. 

By this point I realized that none of the books I picked up were going to reach the intended audience very well.  The only book that had a chance of making an impression was the Bible. So I started searching for Bible studies on the topic.  I found a few, but to put it bluntly, they all sucked.  So I decided to write one myself.  (Hopefully it doesn't suck.)

I wrote specifically with an audience in mind that reflects our congregation: reformed, conservative, and leery of anything that smells even a little bit liberal. I know that liberals have taken up the environmentalist banner and waved it gleefully. But just because liberals wave that banner doesn't, in my mind, mean that conservatives can't also be concerned about many of these same issues.  No one wants their children to be poisoned by toxins in their foods.  No one wants to die of a disease caused by air pollution or water contamination. There are points we can all agree on.  And the Bible speaks not only to these points but to many other environmental concerns as well. 

I recently finished putting together 10 chapters focusing on various topics for study. I pulled from multiple resources including not only my own studies of the Bible, but also from the books mentioned above and even a Teaching Company class on the book of Genesis (which I highly recommend, by the way.  And it's even on sale right now.)

I've uploaded the study book to Lulu.com, where you can download or order a copy. But though it's written, and it's even on Lulu, I think it could still use a thorough editorial review. So I thought I'd invite anyone who is interested to get a copy (I'd actually be happy to order one for you so you don't have to pay for it. But you'll need to send me your address (in a PM).) and go to town on it.  Tell me where I'm not clear, where I don't make my point very well, where my typos are, etc.  You don't have to be a Christian, nor an environmentalist, to try doing the study. You do, however, have to keep in mind who the intended audience is and tell me when you think I'm missing my mark in addressing them. (You don't even have to have a Bible.  The Bible Gateway is an easy way to look up the verses.)  If you're not interested but you know of someone else who might be, please send them a link to this post. If the study can't stand up to serious scrutiny, then it's really not worth me suggesting to the session that we study it at some point. In fact, if it can't stand up to serious scrutiny, then I might as well throw it in the trash bin.  The last thing the world needs is another piece of junk. But I do think it'll (mostly) stand up to scrutiny and so here I am, setting it on the firing line. Fire at will!

Edit: (1 June 2009) The second edition of this Bible study is now out.  I've fixed several typos and a wrong Scripture reference and while I was at it I gave it a new cover (thanks to Lulu's handy premade cover themes).   ------>

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

A friend of mine recently brought this phrase up in an email.  She says:

K is doing well. She asked me what the opposite of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is.  In fact we couldn't agree on what TRHPGI means. She thought it means your intentions don't count, its whether you succeed which counts, as in, if your good intentions bear fruit, you will not go to hell.  

I actually can't get my head around that concept, although I know the expression is not in the Bible, maybe it comes from someone who believes doing good gets you to heaven, and is a warning against promises and ideas which never lead anywhere.

I always thought TRHIPGI means that there is no point doing good and having good intentions, that is the road to hell, and the road to heaven is Trusting in God, Jesus, accepting God's blessings whatever they might be and trusting God through the trials He sends, and doing things you love for the people around you.  If your life is filled with all those things, it is the road to heaven, but as soon as you start trying to "do good", you're on the wrong track.

Given that we couldn't decide what the original means, we haven't yet come to decide what the opposite is!!  K thinks the opposite of her interpretation would be something like:  Try try again.  I.e, your intentions are what counts, as long as you are trying it counts.

The opposite of my interpretation of  TRHIPWGI is that the way to get to heaven is by trying to do good.?? which no one would agree with!

I am interested in your thoughts. 

I've always taken the phrase to mean something like, "You can intend to do the right thing and never actually end up doing what's right."  For example, I could have the best of intentions in trying to get my son, who is terrified of spiders, to get over his fear by confronting him with the next spider that I find.  But if the end result is that he jumps several feet in his fear and ends up hitting his head against the corner of a table and getting hurt (which he did last night, in fact, though it wasn't because of a spider), then it doesn't matter how great my intentions might have been, they're worthless considering what came of them.  

According to Bartleby.com, it means, "Merely intending to do good, without actually doing it, is of no value."

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153) apparently said, "Hell is full of good intentions or desires", which may be the origin of the phrase. (source)

The opposite of TRTHIPWGI? How about, "Do Be Do Be Do."  Or maybe "Just do it." Or perhaps, "Don't just sit there. Get off your duff and do something!"  Despite the fact that hell, a religious term, is included in the phrase, I don't think it's meant to be a theological statement so much as a reprimand against those who think simply wanting good things is enough to make a person good.  (I don't mean "good" in the theological sense, either.  I just mean "good" as in, "he's a good person.")

Objective, Absolute, and Universal Truth

“The idea of truth as objective is simply that no matter what we believe to be the case, some things will always be true and other things will always be false. Our beliefs, whatever they are, have no bearing on the facts of the world around us. That which is true is always true — even if we stop believing it and even if we stop existing at all.” -- atheism.com

“An absolute truth, sometimes called a universal truth, is an unalterable and permanent fact.” -- wisegeek 

It's popular in Christian circles to talk about Absolute Truth.  It's spoken of as one of those defining features that sets us apart from the rabble. While all the world is going to hell in a hand basket because they're a hedonistic bunch of Relativists, the Christians sit smugly upon their stack of Absolute Truths which, conveniently enough, can only be deduced directly from the their own religious text, the Bible. So if you were ever to come to the point that you agreed with Christians on their absolute truths, you'd have to first except the absolute truth that the Bible is the only source for absolute truths.  (This has been my experience, at least, when it comes to discussions among Christians on Absolute Truth.  I'm not trying to say this is absolutely always how the topic is approached.  I'm just giving a relativistic (and snarky) description based on my own personal experiences.)

And yet, if there is objective truth, shouldn't those truths, by definition, be evident, not only to Christians, but to all people? For example: “All people will die.”  This is a basic and objective truth that I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who would disagree with you on. (Of course, Rob's answer was a prompt, "But you can't prove that." I suppose that just because everyone that's gone before us has died doesn't mean that everyone now or to come will also die. So yeah, I can't prove that. Ironic, isn't it? Something that I'm pretty sure everyone would agree to as an absolute truth can't be absolutely proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. No wonder discussions of truth often end up sounding more like squabbles than revelations.) Though the Bible addresses the mankind and death issue ("There is a time for everything... a time to be born and a time to die..." -- Ecclesiastes 3:1a, 2a), I think you can find those who have never once read the Scriptures who would also agree with this truth. In my mind, the fact that you could find people of all ages, cultures and religions who agree with this statement is a strong indicator that the statement is a universal truth (even if you can't prove it). 

In fact, as much as Christians love to try to prove that there is absolute truth (even to the point of proving that what someone hasn't said is wrong), I think the real heart of the matter is not that there are those who believe absolute truth doesn't exist, but that there are those (most of us, in fact) who simply forget these absolute truths.  

And so, when someone comes along and reminds us of some of those absolute truths, their words have the ability to strike us at the core.  They resonate with what we have already experienced to be true, and they spur us on to remember and live by those absolute truths. 

A friend of mine recently posted Steve Jobs' 2005 Stanford Commencement Address, which resonated with me not only because I think it was a well written and organized speech (and because I think Jesus would use a Mac (a computer that Steve Jobs invented)), but because it jived so well with the book that several gals and I have been reading and discussing in our Bible study group on being peacemakers. Here was a man who attributed nothing to God, who very well may never have read the Bible, and who didn't in any way claim to be a Christian, and yet what he said struck me as being true.  It agreed with beliefs (I think of them as "truths.") that I have found in the Bible.  It agreed with experiences I have had in life. In my opinion, Steve Jobs struck upon several Absolute Truths in his speech. 

He had three main points: 

1. The dots will connect.  Trust that and it will give you confidence.
2. Crap happens. Use those times to start over - to redirect yourself again towards what you love. 
3. We will all die. So choose well how you will live and don't get caught up in silly fears and pointless worries. 

OK, so point number one is the most shaky in terms of being "absolute."  Though many people believe in "destiny" or "karma" or "predestination," there are also many that believe life is random.  As a Christian, however, I find it interesting that Jobs would hit upon this point. Proverbs 3:5 says, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding."  In Steve Jobs-ese that would read, "Trust that something -- your gut, destiny, life, Karma, whatever -- is connecting the dots in your life.  Looking forward, you won't see how these dots are going to connect, but looking back, it will become clear." (That's not a direct quote from Jobs.  It's a rearranging of things he said into an approximation of the Proverbs 3:5 format.)  Jobs added that, "Believing that the dots will connect down the road will give you the confidence to follow your heart even when it leads you off the well worn path. And that will make all the difference."  

Jobs' second point, that loss can bring you around to seeking after what you love, is also something that can be found in the Bible.  Paul wrote that "when you put a seed into the ground, it doesn't grow into a plant unless it dies first." (1 Corinthians 15:36) The bounty doesn't come until after there's been the struggle that the seed must endure - burial, death, and new life from the husk that's left behind. Jobs also hit upon several other ideas under this second point: "Keep Looking, don't settle," "Sometime's life's gonna hit you in the head with a brick. Don't lose faith," and "You've got to find what you love." In other words, persevere, keep faith, and don't forsake your first love.  (Jobs sounds like a 21st century echo of Saint John as he wrote to the church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7)).

Steve Jobs concluded with the point that I've already addressed above: We're all going to die. He says, "Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything -- all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure -- these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart." This is wisdom.  Steve Jobs has stated quite eloquently here what even Saint Paul struggled to get across to the early Christians living in Rome -- "We were therefore buried with [Jesus] through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." (Romans 6:4) 

When Saint Paul entered a new city and started speaking to the people there, he often began not by pointing out all the ways in which he disagreed with them, but by pointing out a truth that they could all agree upon. For example, in talking to the men of Athens, he referenced one of their own poets, giving support to his words not by sourcing his own religious text, but by referencing something of theirs. (Acts 17) I can only imagine what our own society would be like if Christians stopped trying to prove that they had the corner on the market for truth and rather started reminding others of truths that we all agree upon (as I feel Steve Jobs has done, heathen though he might be). From there could spring other discussions, such as trying to determine the source of those truths.  But rather than pushing a cultural debate founded upon disagreement, we'd be beginning from a point of unity.  How different would our conversations be then?

Absolute Truth shouldn't be a dividing point used by Christians to attempt to chasten the world.  Rather, Absolute Truth should be that which breaks down the boundaries between us and others and enables us to speak with thoughtfulness, respect, and well... truth.

Ask Jesus into Your Heart. Or Not.

I came across a short essay that I wrote in 1996 in an attempt to answer the question, "Where does it say that Jesus is in our heart?"  (It is rather popular in evangelical circles to claim that people must "ask Jesus into their heart" to be saved.  I was wondering where they got this "ask into your heart" thing.)

I found three Scriptures that came as close as I could get to this concept.  You'll notice that not a single one mentions heart... or any other internal organ either, for that matter.

John 14:20 On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 

John 17:22-23 ... so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

1 Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God...

I then wrote the following.  (OK, so it's sorta stream of consciousness.  Roll with that bit, eh?)

Saying that "Jesus is in your heart" seems to compartmentalize him, even constrict him. It puts Jesus in a part of us.  And he sits there inactively.  There is no mention of him working through us, of him drawing us to be more like him, discipling us, etc.  It's a completed sort of statement  It's a location rather than a state of being or a position of operation. 

Now consider the similar statement that one needs to "ask Jesus into their heart."  This implies that a finite creature can actually direct the actions of an (the) infinite creator.  In my recent studying of the book of John I see numerous references to belief and that Jesus came that we might believe.  No where do I see that he came so that we might put him in our hearts.  

Add to this the prayer of Jesus in John 17.  He asked that we might be in him and him in God so that we may be completely one, so that 1) the world would know God sent Jesus and 2) the world would know God loves us.  It seems to me that the purpose of Christ in us is in no way tied to our salvation (as "asking Jesus into our heart" would have us believe) but is specifically that the world would have a better understanding of God.

Today people use the "Jesus in my heart" thing as a dividing line.  There's us -- we have Jesus safely tucked away inside our blood pumping organ.  And there's them -- they don't have Jesus anywhere in them.  Not even in their livers or kidneys.  Rather than focusing on the unity that John 17's "they may be one as we are one" should point us toward, we first of all twist the concept of Jesus in us and then use it as a sword point to poke others with. 

The moral of the story?  Christians are dorks.  (Which is another way of describing the doctrine of sin, I suppose.)

One Church

As I pack up our house for a brief move (while we have work done on our kitchen and basement) I keep coming across pictures, notes, magazine articles, etc. that I've had squirreled away in boxes or cubby holes for years. 

I came across an old notebook (from about 1996?) in which I had notes from a book I was reading at the time.  As I reread my notes I hit this great quote:

"Something else you see if you spiritually belong to the church is that belonging to it means being catholic -- it means belonging to the whole church, belonging to all others who belong to Christ.  Being a church member is not the same as belonging to a denomination, or a congregation, or a theological persuasion.  If the church is the body of Christ, there can't be more than one church, because there's only one Christ.  Anyone clinging to him must cling to the others who are clinging to him." -- Taking the Word to Heart (I think it's by Robert C. Roberts.  But I didn't write the author's name down in my notes.)

I think this is something the church is constantly struggling with.  We hold so tightly to our own ideas about what church is or what we have to believe to "count" as a Christian, or what our political beliefs must be to be a "proper" Christian that we forget we all follow the same God, and the same savior, and have the same Spirit and we are, whether we like it or not, all one church.