Over thinking the brand

I know this is a bit of a leap, but I'm going to make it anyway. I feel like sometimes churches (or perhaps I should say "church staff") over think what they're all about. They try to turn church into something that sounds really, really great, even though you can't really pin down what they mean by most of what they're saying. The church is "authentic." What does that really mean and how does it fit in with the fact that most of the people on stage are paid staff/professionals? Or the word "covenant" is throw in before all the important words to emphasize how important they are, even if they don't really have anything in particular to do with the covenant. 

Here's a clip of Stephen Colbert sharing a sponsortunity he was given by Wheat Thins... with an overly thought out information sheet attached. 

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Grrrr, the video plays in edit mode, but not once I submit. So if this isn't working, click here to see the video. 

Keeping Christ's Mass in Christmas

I've seen a lot of billboards around town that say,"Keep Christ in Christmas." They all seem to be sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, so I assume this is a nationwide campaign.

I think it's fine to want to celebrate a Christmas that is Christ-focused. But what grabs my attention on these billboards is not what they say, but what they don't say.

Christmas is short for Christ's Mass. The Mass is a Roman Catholic liturgical celebration. So is the implication in these bulletin boards that the Catholic mass should also be kept? I'm sure the Knights of Columbus would reply to that with a resounding "Yes!" as they're one of the largest Catholic fraternal service organizations in the world. But what about all the people who echo the "Keep Christ in Christmas" phrase?

Back in 2005, Christmas fell on a Sunday. What a perfect time for Christ and Mass to collide. And yet the New York Times reported that many megachurches (which tend to be Protestant, so we're really talking about "services" rather than "masses") canceled their Sunday morning events. (Here's the NY Times article or if you can't view that, try this repost.)

What's my point? I think it's just that this is a band-wagon and people love to jump on it without thinking through what it means. Shall we celebrate the Christmas holiday (Christ's Mass Holy Day) as Catholics - with a midnight mass which we attend in reverence and probably also a sense of obligation? Or is this rather a phrase to be used as a weapon of the culture wars, more for bludgeoning others than anything else?

I'm not a big fan of religious bandwagoning. I'm all for jumping on the Doctor's bandwagon ("Bow ties are cool.") or a viral bandwagon (Chanukah with the Maccabeats) or perhaps even a technological bandwagon (Kindle vs. iPad). But God is not a bandwagon, and I don't believe the birthday of Jesus is a divinely sanctioned time to bludgeon others with words. If a non-Christian celebrates a time of Santa and evergreens and lights, what is that to me? They're not making a religious claim by that, so why should I respond with a religious polemic? On the other hand, it seems like a far more interesting and meaningful discussion to approach "Christ in Christmas" Christians and discuss the intersection of the birth of Christ with pagan rituals involving trees and garland or corporations' co-opted version of Saint Nicholas. If you're going to push the Christ back into Christ's Mass, then why celebrate with the non-religious trappings of the holiday rather than with... well, a Mass?

Unwholesome Talk

"When Paul says, 'Forbid any unwholesome talk from entering your conversation,' [Ephesians 4] he is not just talking about cursing, swearing, or vulgar, four-letter words. In fact, to think of the passage in this way grossly minimizes its intent. Paul has something much more redemptively revolutionary in mind. For Paul, unwholesome talk is me-centered talk that has no higher purpose than my own wants, desires, dreams, and demands. Unwholesome words flow from a heart that is controlled by present, personal, earthly desire. They are spoken because they please me and accomplish my goals. They are an attempt to get me what I want, without reference to the lordship of Christ or my call to speak as his ambassador." -- Paul David Tripp, in his book War of Words

I like the phrase he uses here, "grossly minimizes its intent." I think Christians often grossly minimize the intent of a Scripture passage or Biblical directive. And they frequently proceed to take the grossly minimized understanding and magnify it in such a way that minor offenses become major offenses while major offenses are ignored. 

Truth or Lies - Where do our words come from?

I just started a book called War of Words, by Paul David Tripp. The gals in our church agreed to read it this summer and get together now and again to discuss it. Our first meeting is tomorrow morning, so I figured it was time to get reading.  

To be honest, I'm struggling with it, so far. (I'm only in the second chapter.) I'm not struggling with what he's saying so much as how he's saying it. He's making claims and failing explain or back most of them up. (His entire first chapter is devoted to how wonderful words and communication were in Genesis chapter 1, yet he doesn't refer in detail to any part of the chapter, nor does he quote from it. He does, on the other hand, include a long (3 page) quote from the book of Isaiah. In other words, he's saying things that he could pretty easily and quickly make a decent argument for, and he doesn't. I find that ridiculously distracting as I read.) 

But I finally hit an idea (as opposed to a writing style) that made me wonder. He claims that, "Every word we speak is rooted either in the truth or in a lie." (p. 23) What do you think of that? If I say that dinner's ready, and it's not actually on the table, nor even out of the oven, but I know that by the time everyone reaches the table it will be, does that mean my speech is rooted in a lie? Is it even helpful to think of statements like that in that light? Or what about my statements in the second paragraph of this post? Are they rooted either in a truth or a lie? Is it helpful to look at them in that light? 

It seems to me like this guy likes to make grand statements. He over emphasizes things in one direction or another in order to make his point. And yet, in talking about lying, does the fact that he over states himself mean that he's speaking from a position of lies rather than truth? Can you truthfully overstate truth? 

"Every word we speak is rooted either in the truth or in a lie." I don't think words are that simple. I don't think people, or most other things in our universe, are so clear cut. What do you think? 

(For those of you going, "Bu..bu..but what about absolutes? you might want to read this post.)

Memorial Day - What's the point?

Memorial Day has come and gone, but I wanted to reflect on a couple of posts that showed up in my Facebook feed over that weekend. My goal isn't to point fingers at specific people but to explore a connection that other people seem to see but that I'm at a loss over. Here are the two status updates that I am particularly referring to:

Thanks to those who courageously sacrificed their lives for us, pointing to the ultimate sacrifice given for us, Christ on the cross."

"What a Blessing to live in the USA- May everyone have a wonderful Memorial Day weekend and remember those men and women in uniform who fought to keep the Blessings coming from the Lord Jesus Christ!!!!!"

Memorial Day, as I understand it, is an American holiday, made official in 1868 by General John Logan, in which we remember those who have died in the nation's service. When I look at the Department of Veterans Affairs page on the day, I see no mention of Christ, the cross, or even Christianity. In fact, from looking at that page, one might even get the impression that this is a day to honor and remember the death of any soldier who died in the service of the United States of America, no matter what their religious affiliation and no matter what their purpose was in fighting. 

So why is it, then, that someone might think the death of an American soldier, of unknown religious affiliation (if any), in some way points "to the ultimate sacrifice given for us, Christ on the cross"? If that is the case, then isn't any death, of any sort, by any person anywhere, also pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of Christ? Or is there something about Memorial Day that makes the death more pointedly Christian that it would be otherwise?

And why is it assumed that soldiers are fighting with the united purpose of keeping "the Blessings coming from the Lord Jesus Christ!!!!!" Didn't some soldiers fight because they were drafted, or because they wanted to end slavery, or to protect their economic situation, or because they wanted to go out and "prove themselves"? Or perhaps the poster on Facebook is trying to focus on the blessings the United States enjoys with the assumption that all of those blessings are directly from Jesus. If that's the case, did Jesus need these soldiers to fight and kill other people in order to maintain a divine system of giving blessings to the nation? Couldn't he have blessed the nation without the bloodshed? 

I do want to honor those who have died in the service of this nation of which I am a part. Whether I agree with the war in which they died or not, that in no way diminishes the extent of their sacrifice. But I want to honor their death because it was the moment at which something honorable, something lovely, something marvelous ended. Every life is valuable and the end of life should always be treated with respect and honor in recognition of that which is lost. But to intimately connect death in battle with the sacrifice of Christ, or the continued blessings bestowed on a nation, seems to only diminish the death of a soldier rather than to honor it. Is a person's death only to be honored if it can point to a spiritual sacrifice? Is a person's death only to be honored if it can mean more good things for me as a citizen? I believe the answer is "no" to both of those questions. 

Re: Jesus loves you

This cracked me up. I'd love to see what folks said in the emails they sent in reply to him.

I think the answer to the disconnect has to do with justice. But the disconnect itself is interesting in its own right (as the video hilariously points out). I think many people who call themselves Christians live in this world of disconnect without ever realizing how confused they are. And when it dawns on them, I think that's when they jump ship.

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.")

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.)