I'm going to tell you my most "memorable" Christmas that I've had. Unfortunately, this story is best told in person with many sound effects and imitations of the people involved, however, my attempt at the written version will have to suffice.
My story takes place in Japan. It was our first Christmas away from our homes. Colleen's Mom and sister came to visit but had just left. According to my recollection, it was somewhere around a week or so before Christmas (you will understand why my memory is hazy as the story continues). Being new to the country, my body was not used to the new germs etc etc that lived in the Tokyo metropolitan area and as such, I got very very sick. I had a nasty fever and a very bad ear infection. The ear infection was so bad that I was actually bleeding out of my ear along with other nasty discharges. It was so bad that I agreed that I needed to see a doctor.
In Japan, one doesn't just go to the doctor. One must see a specialist. So in my case, I had to go to the ear, nose, and throat specialist. Since we had been in Japan for a whopping 5 months or so, my Japanese was rudimentary at best, and downright horrible in reality. Dakara (therefore), Don Love (a missionary in Japan whom Colleen was doing some volunteer work for) accompanied me to this....specialist.
Upon entry into this doctor's office, I felt immediately transported backwards in time. Instead of a futuristic doctor's office like one would expect from the technological leaders of the world, I felt like I had just stepped into the doctor's office in the Western Development Museum in Saskatoon. All of the instruments were made of stainless steel (tongue depressors, chair, etc.) and all of the doctors and nurses were wearing surgical masks and gloves. Don proceeds to go to the front desk lady (who was behind a big piece of glass with a little hole for talking through making me wonder exactly what kind of people usually show up at this place) and check me in.
It comes time for us to go in to see the doctor who has me sit in this very old fashioned looking chair made of mostly metal that goes up and down and leans back and the whole shabang. He gets his little light and starts looking in my ear to see what the matter is. He then proceeds to mutter under his breath in Japanese. "Ahhhh, nan darou. Mita koto nainda. Hmmmmm. Nani sore." Unless you understand Japanese, that made no sense to you, which is exactly how I felt. The doctor then proceeds to pull this giant book off the shelf and starts flipping through the pages looking at pictures, then looking back in my ear. At this point I'm beginning to realize that this guy has no idea what is wrong with my ear and is looking it up in his 'doctor book' right in front of me.
Having apparently come no closer to a conclusion as to what was wrong with my ear, the specialist then proceeds to 'treat' my problem. This is where it gets very interesting. For those who have a tendency to be queasy, this your chance to stop reading. For the more adventurous and those who enjoy hearing of other's agony, read on.
The doctor gets out this 12 inch long stainless steel rod with little cotton swabs on either end. Its basically a giant steel Q-tip. He then starts coming at me with this thing. My first thought is, "okay he's going to try and clean out my ear a little bit. It's a little bit big and a little overkill, but I'm sure he's just ran out of the smaller steel Q-tips." Just as I thought he was going to clean the inside of my ear he starts to put this thing in my nose. My next thought is, "Well maybe he wants to clean out the inside of my nose a bit. Maybe that will help my ear?" I'm sure you have figured out where this is going by now, but I shall continue anyway. The doctor then keeps pushing the giant steel Q-tip all the way up my nose until all 12 inches of it have disappeared into my head. I can feel this thing behind my eye scraping the drum of my ear from the inside. I daren't move at this point for fear that he'll accidentally push it in too far and will be unable to retrieve it. I have to say, that it was probably the most uncomfortable, intrusive thing I've ever had done to me (and I've had a vasectomy). This lasted for probably 30 seconds, although it felt a lot longer than that, until he finally pulled the thing back out which felt like he was going to pull my brain out at the same time a la Egyptian mummification techniques.
The doctor then starts muttering under his breath some more and flipping through his book again when he comes back and starts setting up some kind of....machine. I don't remember exactly what the machine looked like, but I do know what it did. He attached a long rubber hose (about 1/4" in diameter) to the machine and at this point I could already guess where that rubber hose is going. Unfortunately my guess was correct. Up my nose with a rubber hose. He shoves the thing right up there until its touching my ear drum and apparently, the machine was an air compressor which he fired up. He opened up the valve to the rubber hose and started blowing air right into my ear drum from the inside. In retrospect, I would like to know what psi was on that thing and exactly how much pressure it actually took until my ear drum finally blew open and air was flying out of my ear from the inside of my head. Once he had finished blowing air through my nose and out my ear, he pulled the rubber hose back out (my ear immediately plugged up again, although I must admit, those 5 seconds of relief did kind of feel good. But the hose up my nose far outweighed any benefit that those 5 seconds gave me). That was the end of the treatment.
The doctor then prescribed me antibiotics, something else, and something to counteract the antibiotics side effects, and then another medication to counteract the side effects of the medication that was meant to counter the side effects of the antibiotics. Needless to say, it was a poor experience at the doctor and I was supposed to go back a week later for a follow-up. Naturally, I didn't want to have the steel rod rubber hose treatment again so we told everybody we knew to pray for my ear. Within a week, before I had to go back, my ear was completely cleared up. When Don and I went back to the doctor, he looked in my ear and did nothing else. He then explained to Don that he had actually been really worried about my ear and didn't think that it was going to recover and that I was going to lose my hearing. So it is quite safe to say that God performed a miracle for me that Christmas and allowed me to keep my hearing in that ear. In fact, the last time I had a hearing test, that ear did better than the other one. And that is my most memorable Christmas story.
Owarimashita! (The End)
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Christmas Tales...
As I'm sure you all know, Christmas is nearly upon us. In light of the intrinsically busy nature of the holiday season as well as the fact that I hope very much that our contributors and readers are all getting some needed rest, let's shift gears to something a little lighter until after the holidays.
If you're at all interested in blogging here over the break, why not tell us your very favorite Christmas story. It can be fiction or non-fiction, funny or sad, touching or absurd. My wife and I have been rediscovering the comforting power of stories lately. It's served as a reminder that no matter how much propositional theology I read or write, the power of narrative to touch and change my life is always deeper.
So tell us a story, whatever story you like.
If you're at all interested in blogging here over the break, why not tell us your very favorite Christmas story. It can be fiction or non-fiction, funny or sad, touching or absurd. My wife and I have been rediscovering the comforting power of stories lately. It's served as a reminder that no matter how much propositional theology I read or write, the power of narrative to touch and change my life is always deeper.
So tell us a story, whatever story you like.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
What is Salvation?
I feel like it might be helpful to get back to basics for a minute. My question is: What is salvation? In the context of our particular blog here, another way of putting it might be: What is the point?I'm going to take some cynical liberties and for the sake of argument colour some possible answers according to some of the language I've been picking up on here on this blog and also in evangelicalism as a whole. I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but I want to push and prod us a bit too.
1) Is salvation to be thought of in terms of individual life-transformation? A change of character so that one is more Christ-like not only in outward moral action but in terms of inner peace and so on?
2) Is salvation a matter of personal allegiance; an assent or surrender of the will to God?
3) Is salvation to be thought of as the invoking of a new kind of humanity? Thus to be saved is to be converted to a sort of humanitarianism modeled after Christ?
4) Is salvation about personal destiny? Eventually you will be raised to life with God in heaven or you will die into an eternity apart from God in hell; and that's the basic issue at stake?
5) Is salvation about being in love with God? Coming into a personal relationship with Christ and loving Him and loving others?
6) Is salvation about being part of communion with the Triune God in Christ together with all the saints, as sort of a first outposts of the City of God's self-giving love; the Kingdom of Heaven?
7) Other?
Now before everyone decides this is merely abstract theology and therefore irrelevant, let me take my provocative "colourings" of the issue a bit further and spell out what I see to be practical ramifications of these different views:
1) Self-help books are more important than the Church, unless of course you've been lucky enough to find a church that caters to your "felt-needs" pretty directly. Seems pretty ingrown to me. Not sure what place the Bride of Christ has in this view, other than being the collective place where hopefully our lives get enhanced, we get "fed", we get encouraged and inspired, and so on. And what does our witness to Christ become except trying to help people better themselves, ie, look what Christ did for me! I'm sure he can do the same for you! Spiritual gifts are also about personal self-fulfillment; they aren't really for others, per se.
2) What matters most here then is the act of the will, the surrender of oneself, the declaration of loyalties. The altar call is paramount. It takes over. It becomes what it is all about. Everything else is gravy; even optional. The worship service all leads up to these moments of decision. The testimony is mostly about what led us to our turning point. It is about us and our choice. What about God? What about life?
3) Why go to church? Come to think of it: Why be a Christian? What does Christ have that Oprah and Brangelina don't? (By the way I love Brad Pitt, don't get me wrong)
4) Again, why life on earth at all then? Why even create earth? Why not cut to the chase? And why does life go on and on? And why did Jesus do so many healings? Why was the idea of heaven and hell almost absent from Israel's teachings?
5) Too often this view makes it all about the isolated personal relationship, so that all that matters is our fuzzy-wuzzy moments with God, our "sacred romance", and so when we get together for corporate worship we all have our eyes closed trying to get that experience of God. And we talk about being in love with Jesus in ways that I don't see even the disciples who walked with him doing.
6) Obviously, by saving this one for last, I'm showing my own colours. I think this enfolds the truths of the others, and yet puts a perspective on things that is much more holistic and true.
Forgive my provocative cynicism here. I offer it in a spirit of (serious) fun. The above is written as a conversation starter, not as some sort of full-fledgedstatement of faith or something like that. Of course, I am trying to say some things here, but they are haphazard and sloppy to some degree, just to get us started. Feel free to add a seventh option, to "redeem" one of the ones I've offered and mutilated; or to critique or prod for more on number 6!
Monday, December 1, 2008
Witness...
Let me begin by doing something that Scripture commands and rejoicing with those who rejoice and mourning with those who mourn. On the rejoicing side, a huge congrats to Jon (a regular contributor) and his wife on the birth of their twin boys. You can see some ridiculously cute pics here (I'm talking about the kids, not Jon of course), as well as names and critical info. Deepest blessings to you and Ang, Jon, and my thoughts and prayers are with you. On the mourning side, a close friend and her husband recently lost their unborn twins. There's nothing good to be said about this, it's horrible up and down. Jin and I love you and we're praying for you everyday.
On to the question. This one's been slow to move, which makes me think people are busy. It can't possibly be a crappy, disinteresting questions because I thought it up and, as we all know, everything I do is pure gold ;). But seriously folks, if the question seems lame to you that's cool, just let me know or feel free to push us off in another direction if you like. Here's my attempt at an answer.
First of all, I really can't disagree with anything that Jon or Scott said in the comments on the last post. Jon hits on one of the most important points in any discussion about evangelism, which is the fact that no human person anywhere at anytime has ever converted another person to faith in Christ. Conversion is an act of God and nothing less. It is on this single, most important, truth that I think we must build a theology of evangelism. People are not numbers on a scoreboard or notches in a belt. We are not successful because of how many we've "saved." We don't save anybody, Christ does.
What then is our duty as Christians? It's to be Christian. We are called to live as people who have encountered God and are changed because of it. This means, again as Jon said, being witnesses to Christ. A witness sees or experiences an event and then tells about it. Even more, in the spiritual sense of witness, a witness has been changed at the deepest level and doesn't just tell about what caused that change, but lives about it. This can take almost any form. When people ask me how we should do evangelism I ask them how they told people they were engaged to be married. How do you tell people about this great book you just read? How do you tell people that you just had twins? You tell them by telling them. You tell them in any which-way you can. You email and phone, you blog and write, you stop and chat, you preach and proclaim, you do all sorts of things. Good news is good news, and you tell it by telling it. How's that for a permeating syllogism?
Is it legitimate to make exclusive claims about Christ and faith? You bet it is! Everyone makes exclusive claims. I don't know any religion or philosophy that makes no exclusive claims at all. What would be the point of that philosophy or religion? I have no trouble claiming that Christianity is the only way to truly know God. But when I say that, I try to say it with honest humility. I think that Christianity is the only way to truly know God. It is indeed possible that I'm wrong. This is the path that I've chosen and there are reasons for that choice. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I don't think that I am wrong, so I'm perfectly happy to argue in favour of my choice to follow Christ.
When it comes to in-bounds and out-of-bounds approaches to evangelism, all I say is that manipulation is un-Christian. I don't want to manipulate someone into thinking that he/she is a Christian. In fact, often when I tell someone about the Gospel I spend most of my time talking them out of it. Being a Christian is a big deal. It should not be taken on lightly. Anything that looks or smells at all of manipulation is out of bounds. Apart from that, who cares? Communicate in the form and the forum that you think is helpful and effective and let God do his thing.
One last thing. When we talk about a person being "saved," do we just mean saved from hell, or is there something more at play there? Should we maybe be talking about being "saved for" at least as much as "saved from"?
On to the question. This one's been slow to move, which makes me think people are busy. It can't possibly be a crappy, disinteresting questions because I thought it up and, as we all know, everything I do is pure gold ;). But seriously folks, if the question seems lame to you that's cool, just let me know or feel free to push us off in another direction if you like. Here's my attempt at an answer.
First of all, I really can't disagree with anything that Jon or Scott said in the comments on the last post. Jon hits on one of the most important points in any discussion about evangelism, which is the fact that no human person anywhere at anytime has ever converted another person to faith in Christ. Conversion is an act of God and nothing less. It is on this single, most important, truth that I think we must build a theology of evangelism. People are not numbers on a scoreboard or notches in a belt. We are not successful because of how many we've "saved." We don't save anybody, Christ does.
What then is our duty as Christians? It's to be Christian. We are called to live as people who have encountered God and are changed because of it. This means, again as Jon said, being witnesses to Christ. A witness sees or experiences an event and then tells about it. Even more, in the spiritual sense of witness, a witness has been changed at the deepest level and doesn't just tell about what caused that change, but lives about it. This can take almost any form. When people ask me how we should do evangelism I ask them how they told people they were engaged to be married. How do you tell people about this great book you just read? How do you tell people that you just had twins? You tell them by telling them. You tell them in any which-way you can. You email and phone, you blog and write, you stop and chat, you preach and proclaim, you do all sorts of things. Good news is good news, and you tell it by telling it. How's that for a permeating syllogism?
Is it legitimate to make exclusive claims about Christ and faith? You bet it is! Everyone makes exclusive claims. I don't know any religion or philosophy that makes no exclusive claims at all. What would be the point of that philosophy or religion? I have no trouble claiming that Christianity is the only way to truly know God. But when I say that, I try to say it with honest humility. I think that Christianity is the only way to truly know God. It is indeed possible that I'm wrong. This is the path that I've chosen and there are reasons for that choice. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I don't think that I am wrong, so I'm perfectly happy to argue in favour of my choice to follow Christ.
When it comes to in-bounds and out-of-bounds approaches to evangelism, all I say is that manipulation is un-Christian. I don't want to manipulate someone into thinking that he/she is a Christian. In fact, often when I tell someone about the Gospel I spend most of my time talking them out of it. Being a Christian is a big deal. It should not be taken on lightly. Anything that looks or smells at all of manipulation is out of bounds. Apart from that, who cares? Communicate in the form and the forum that you think is helpful and effective and let God do his thing.
One last thing. When we talk about a person being "saved," do we just mean saved from hell, or is there something more at play there? Should we maybe be talking about being "saved for" at least as much as "saved from"?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Question #4...
Things seem to be moving along fairly well so far. Since the first biographical question we've had official questions from both me and Trev. Again, any contributor is welcome to post an official question at any point and ask for replies. Also, any commentator is welcome to post in comments requesting a specific question. I will absolutely take any such question and post it officially as long as it falls anywhere near the very broad topical reach of the blog.
Conversation on Trev's post seems to be slowing down, and my kind-of-unofficialish-questionlike post seems to be pretty slow as well. As always, if those topics are still of interest to you please keep commenting in the threads. I know I check them almost daily and I think our other contributors and readers check them regularly too. That said, I think it's time for a new official question.
This time I'm going to take Jon's and Dustin's advice and go with something a little bit more specific. I'm also going to vary the format slightly. There has been some back and forth discussion about practical v. theoretical problems. Like Jon I think that the practical and theoretical are both completely necessary. I also realize, however, that they do represent two different kinds of conversations. As an attempt to let both conversations happen I'll ask this question in two ways. First as a theoretical/theological question, and second as a practical/ecclesiological question. This one arises out of several of the comments in Trev's question and the responses to it.
On the theological end:
Is the attempt to convert non-Christians to Christianity a legitimate undertaking? If so, how do you deal with questions of imposing our point of view on others who don't share it? Isn't this just a kind of colonialism? If not, how do you deal with both the extensive biblical witness to the importance of active evangelism and also the long history and tradition of the Church that values evangelism and missionary work? Has the Church always been wrong and we're just getting it right now?
On the practical end:
If evangelism is a legitimate enterprise, what should it look like in the 21st century Canadian (and if you like, American) church? What practices are in-bounds and what practices are out-of-bounds, and why? If evangelism is not a legitimate enterprise, how then should the church relate to the non-Christian world generally and to non-Christians in particular? Is it just a live-and-let-live situation or is there any kind of broad responsibility with regard to the interaction of Church and culture?
Well folks, there you are. Have at it.
Conversation on Trev's post seems to be slowing down, and my kind-of-unofficialish-questionlike post seems to be pretty slow as well. As always, if those topics are still of interest to you please keep commenting in the threads. I know I check them almost daily and I think our other contributors and readers check them regularly too. That said, I think it's time for a new official question.
This time I'm going to take Jon's and Dustin's advice and go with something a little bit more specific. I'm also going to vary the format slightly. There has been some back and forth discussion about practical v. theoretical problems. Like Jon I think that the practical and theoretical are both completely necessary. I also realize, however, that they do represent two different kinds of conversations. As an attempt to let both conversations happen I'll ask this question in two ways. First as a theoretical/theological question, and second as a practical/ecclesiological question. This one arises out of several of the comments in Trev's question and the responses to it.
On the theological end:
Is the attempt to convert non-Christians to Christianity a legitimate undertaking? If so, how do you deal with questions of imposing our point of view on others who don't share it? Isn't this just a kind of colonialism? If not, how do you deal with both the extensive biblical witness to the importance of active evangelism and also the long history and tradition of the Church that values evangelism and missionary work? Has the Church always been wrong and we're just getting it right now?
On the practical end:
If evangelism is a legitimate enterprise, what should it look like in the 21st century Canadian (and if you like, American) church? What practices are in-bounds and what practices are out-of-bounds, and why? If evangelism is not a legitimate enterprise, how then should the church relate to the non-Christian world generally and to non-Christians in particular? Is it just a live-and-let-live situation or is there any kind of broad responsibility with regard to the interaction of Church and culture?
Well folks, there you are. Have at it.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Greatest of These?
I'm throwing out another question in response to Trev's post below and some of the things said on the comments thread. I in no way intend to shut down conversation on the other threads and I strongly encourage contributors and readers to go there and keep the conversation going. That said:
Jesus once said that the two greatest commandments are to love God with everything and to love our neighbors as ourselves. When those two commands come into conflict, and we must choose between loving a God who we accept by faith and a neighbor who we can shake hands with, which one is paramount? Is it better to love God or to love neighbor?
Jesus once said that the two greatest commandments are to love God with everything and to love our neighbors as ourselves. When those two commands come into conflict, and we must choose between loving a God who we accept by faith and a neighbor who we can shake hands with, which one is paramount? Is it better to love God or to love neighbor?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
A "post-modern" opinion.
The term post-modern is just a term that can be used to describe a variety of things and even if we don't use the term with its original meaning, it is nonetheless used to describe the current cultural climate we find ourselves in. Usage of word by the masses to describe something makes it correct. Thus, I personally use the term post-modern as a way to describe our current culture, if for no other reason but to fit in and sound like I know what I'm talking about.
I want to just touch on a couple of things regarding the post-modern Christian 'in action'. This is probably going to be really hodge podge, but such is life. Please bear with me. I would also like to begin by saying that most of what follows is just my opinion. The first thing I would like to discuss is tolerance, and specifically religious tolerance. I don't really like the word tolerance, I prefer to say acceptance in its stead. I really like this one quote from Herman Melville's Moby-Dick. Ishmael, the main character, finds himself unexpectly bunking with a pagan named Queequeg who worships a little idol. They soon become good friends, and what follows are Ishmael's thoughts when Queequeg invites him to join in his worship of the Idol.
"I was a good Christian; born and bred in the bosom of the infallible Presbyterian Church. How then could I unite with this wild idolator in worshipping his piece of wood? But what is worship? thought I. Do you suppose now, Ishmael, that the magnanimous God of heaven and earth-pagans and all included-can possibly be jealous of an insignificant bit of black wood? Impossible! But what is worship?-to do the will of God-that is worship. And what is the will of God?-to do to my fellow man what I would have my fellow man do to me-that is the will of God. Now, Queequeg is my fellow man. And what do I wish that this Queequeg would do to me? Why, unite with me in my particular Presbyterian form of worship. Consequently, I must then unite with him in his; ergo, I must turn idolator. So I kindled the shavings; helped prop up the innocent little idol; offered him burnt biscuit with Queequeg; salaamed before him twice or thrice; kissed his nose; and that done, we undressed and went to bed, at peace with our own consciences and all the world."
Personally, I thought that was brilliant. Herman Melville definitely had a certain slant in his theological thinking that was much more accepting of other religions as is evidenced throughout Moby Dick. Of course his logic is somewhat interesting, as he chooses to place the 'do unto your neighbour' commandment above the 'do not worship any other god' commandment, but then again, Jesus did say that was the second most important thing to remember, but that is beside the point. Back to my opinion.
Is it possible to be a Christian and still accept other religions? Colin talked in his post about how he will dialogue with a hindu or buddhist and not think they're stupid. He thinks they're wrong, but not stupid. I also believe that is very important. I think that truth is relative, and true objectivity impossible. I also believe that proving Christianity is the one true religion is also impossible. To believe Christianity as the one true religion is different from Christianity being the one true religion. As such, as a Christian, I think that one needs to have an accepting attitude toward other religions.
I don't think that we should be necessarily targeting certain religious groups and trying to force the gospel on them in order to turn them into converts. For me, I switch the emphasis toward social action (again this is just how I feel, and I do realize that balance is important). For me, I find it somewhat disturbing that we as Christians have large buildings with paid pastors (nothing against pastors, I love you gals/guys), large bills to pay each month to run our monsterous churches, missionaries to support who are working to convert the catholics in South America (whom, incidentally, I do not think need converting), and then when the benevolent offering goes around people are scrounging out their quarters. Of course, this is not a blanket statement for all Christians and churches, it is just the impression I have gotten from the churches I have attended. I have digressed from my acceptance rant slightly, but that's okay.
Acceptance goes beyond different religions. One specific example that I can think of is the gay community. Recently (relatively recently) Canada opted to change the definition of 'marriage' to include same-sex couples, allowing them to have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I know a lot of Christians who have found this to be the most offensive and horrible thing in the world. Regardless of where one stands on the whole 'homosexuality is a sin' issue, I believe that this is not a moral issue, but rather a human rights issue (I don't want this to turn into a pro-gay/anti-gay discussion). I don't believe in mixing religion and politics. Religious freedom in our country means that we don't impose religious beliefs on the whole of the country and that we are all free to worship in whatever way we feel. Since homosexuality is a Christian religious moral issue, it is unfair to impose Christian religious views on the gay community and deny them their rights as humans. Therefore, I was very happy when the government decided to sanction gay marriage.
Regarding how we interact with non-Christians, I do have an opinion on that as well (surprise of all surprises). I have heard very recently, even in the last 2 days, how a certain Christian was feeling quite guilty about the fact that they haven't really brought their neighbours or non-christian friends to church. Personally, if I was a non-Christian, I wouldn't want to go to Church. It's just weird. They all stand and sing strange songs about blood and other strange metaphors. Then they pray these long prayers where they say 'Lord' and 'God' and 'Just' every two words. (I'm not being critical, I'm just trying to demonstrate how the things that we Christians take as normal are really very strange looking from the outside). I first noticed this 'strangeness' after living in Japan and having not attended a large English speaking Church for a very long time. When we did go, I was weirded out.
All that to say, that it seems that as far as evangelism goes, what most of us have done in the past is put on some kind of event at the church, and bring a friend. Personally, I really dislike this. The unsuspecting victim comes to the event expecting a nice meal and hanging out with their buddy only to discover they have become a project and are hit in the forehead with the gospel. It's almost like getting a free night at a time-share-condo.
I don't believe that non-Christians are projects to be converted. Why can't we all just have real friendships with people who don't believe the way we do without having some secret agenda? People aren't stupid. They can see right through stuff like that. I personally will not invite a friend to church or to an event. If they ask me if they can come, and its their initiative, that's all fine and great. I am more interested in helping people if they need it (although I'm not always good at doing that), having conversations about spirituality (without saying I think they are wrong), and if somebody is interested more in Christianity and wants to check out Church, so be it. But again, I'm not a bean counter for how many converts a church gets. We do ourselves no favours by doing aggressive evangelism. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? This goes back to Queequeg. Ishmael did for Queequeg what he would have Queequeg do for him, and that, I think, speaks more than evangelistic events.
Moving on. I have another quote for you from the Brian Mclaren's book, Finding our Way Again. The discussion is regarding why Buddhism seems to be so popular. Dr. Senge, when talking to a book store owner, asked what the most popular books were. The second most popular books which were bought were about spirituality, and in particular Buddhism. The question is then posed to Dr. Senge by Brian Mclaren, "why are books on Buddhism so popular and not books on Christianity?" The answer that was given was this. "I think it's because Buddhism presents itself as a way of life, and Christianity presents itself as a sytem of belief. So I would want to get Christian ministers thinking about how to rediscover their own faith as a way of life, because that's what people are searching for today. That's what they need most."
It was this quote that kind of inspired me to ask the question I did. I think that it is very true that the general image that Christianity gives off is that we are a system of belief. We tell you what and how to believe regarding God and that's pretty much the jist of it. Of course Christians will argue that we are much more than a system of beliefs, but that does not negate that the world views us otherwise. How can Christianity become a way of life and not a system of beliefs? Brian Mclaren goes on in his book to discuss the Ancient Practices of the Christian faith as a way of life which I do find to be very useful. I don't really have a good answer to this question and would be interested in hearing everybody else's thoughts on this as well.
Unfortunately, I have found myself in the 'system of belief' camp for most of my life and am just trying to work through this question for myself. I think as well, that if most of us are honest with ourselves, what we believe is more important than how we live out our Christian lives. Just look at how fast our conversations on this blog turn to technical theological issues which don't really influence how we live our lives. I am definitely guilty of this myself. I am by nature a thinker, and thus I become very analytical trying to work out my 'system of belief'' to the detriment of working on my way of life. I of course have my soap boxes (social action and acceptance being the main ones) but as far as spiritual practices go, I am very much lacking. Sorry, this post got kind of long. I thought it would be quick.
I want to just touch on a couple of things regarding the post-modern Christian 'in action'. This is probably going to be really hodge podge, but such is life. Please bear with me. I would also like to begin by saying that most of what follows is just my opinion. The first thing I would like to discuss is tolerance, and specifically religious tolerance. I don't really like the word tolerance, I prefer to say acceptance in its stead. I really like this one quote from Herman Melville's Moby-Dick. Ishmael, the main character, finds himself unexpectly bunking with a pagan named Queequeg who worships a little idol. They soon become good friends, and what follows are Ishmael's thoughts when Queequeg invites him to join in his worship of the Idol.
"I was a good Christian; born and bred in the bosom of the infallible Presbyterian Church. How then could I unite with this wild idolator in worshipping his piece of wood? But what is worship? thought I. Do you suppose now, Ishmael, that the magnanimous God of heaven and earth-pagans and all included-can possibly be jealous of an insignificant bit of black wood? Impossible! But what is worship?-to do the will of God-that is worship. And what is the will of God?-to do to my fellow man what I would have my fellow man do to me-that is the will of God. Now, Queequeg is my fellow man. And what do I wish that this Queequeg would do to me? Why, unite with me in my particular Presbyterian form of worship. Consequently, I must then unite with him in his; ergo, I must turn idolator. So I kindled the shavings; helped prop up the innocent little idol; offered him burnt biscuit with Queequeg; salaamed before him twice or thrice; kissed his nose; and that done, we undressed and went to bed, at peace with our own consciences and all the world."
Personally, I thought that was brilliant. Herman Melville definitely had a certain slant in his theological thinking that was much more accepting of other religions as is evidenced throughout Moby Dick. Of course his logic is somewhat interesting, as he chooses to place the 'do unto your neighbour' commandment above the 'do not worship any other god' commandment, but then again, Jesus did say that was the second most important thing to remember, but that is beside the point. Back to my opinion.
Is it possible to be a Christian and still accept other religions? Colin talked in his post about how he will dialogue with a hindu or buddhist and not think they're stupid. He thinks they're wrong, but not stupid. I also believe that is very important. I think that truth is relative, and true objectivity impossible. I also believe that proving Christianity is the one true religion is also impossible. To believe Christianity as the one true religion is different from Christianity being the one true religion. As such, as a Christian, I think that one needs to have an accepting attitude toward other religions.
I don't think that we should be necessarily targeting certain religious groups and trying to force the gospel on them in order to turn them into converts. For me, I switch the emphasis toward social action (again this is just how I feel, and I do realize that balance is important). For me, I find it somewhat disturbing that we as Christians have large buildings with paid pastors (nothing against pastors, I love you gals/guys), large bills to pay each month to run our monsterous churches, missionaries to support who are working to convert the catholics in South America (whom, incidentally, I do not think need converting), and then when the benevolent offering goes around people are scrounging out their quarters. Of course, this is not a blanket statement for all Christians and churches, it is just the impression I have gotten from the churches I have attended. I have digressed from my acceptance rant slightly, but that's okay.
Acceptance goes beyond different religions. One specific example that I can think of is the gay community. Recently (relatively recently) Canada opted to change the definition of 'marriage' to include same-sex couples, allowing them to have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I know a lot of Christians who have found this to be the most offensive and horrible thing in the world. Regardless of where one stands on the whole 'homosexuality is a sin' issue, I believe that this is not a moral issue, but rather a human rights issue (I don't want this to turn into a pro-gay/anti-gay discussion). I don't believe in mixing religion and politics. Religious freedom in our country means that we don't impose religious beliefs on the whole of the country and that we are all free to worship in whatever way we feel. Since homosexuality is a Christian religious moral issue, it is unfair to impose Christian religious views on the gay community and deny them their rights as humans. Therefore, I was very happy when the government decided to sanction gay marriage.
Regarding how we interact with non-Christians, I do have an opinion on that as well (surprise of all surprises). I have heard very recently, even in the last 2 days, how a certain Christian was feeling quite guilty about the fact that they haven't really brought their neighbours or non-christian friends to church. Personally, if I was a non-Christian, I wouldn't want to go to Church. It's just weird. They all stand and sing strange songs about blood and other strange metaphors. Then they pray these long prayers where they say 'Lord' and 'God' and 'Just' every two words. (I'm not being critical, I'm just trying to demonstrate how the things that we Christians take as normal are really very strange looking from the outside). I first noticed this 'strangeness' after living in Japan and having not attended a large English speaking Church for a very long time. When we did go, I was weirded out.
All that to say, that it seems that as far as evangelism goes, what most of us have done in the past is put on some kind of event at the church, and bring a friend. Personally, I really dislike this. The unsuspecting victim comes to the event expecting a nice meal and hanging out with their buddy only to discover they have become a project and are hit in the forehead with the gospel. It's almost like getting a free night at a time-share-condo.
I don't believe that non-Christians are projects to be converted. Why can't we all just have real friendships with people who don't believe the way we do without having some secret agenda? People aren't stupid. They can see right through stuff like that. I personally will not invite a friend to church or to an event. If they ask me if they can come, and its their initiative, that's all fine and great. I am more interested in helping people if they need it (although I'm not always good at doing that), having conversations about spirituality (without saying I think they are wrong), and if somebody is interested more in Christianity and wants to check out Church, so be it. But again, I'm not a bean counter for how many converts a church gets. We do ourselves no favours by doing aggressive evangelism. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? This goes back to Queequeg. Ishmael did for Queequeg what he would have Queequeg do for him, and that, I think, speaks more than evangelistic events.
Moving on. I have another quote for you from the Brian Mclaren's book, Finding our Way Again. The discussion is regarding why Buddhism seems to be so popular. Dr. Senge, when talking to a book store owner, asked what the most popular books were. The second most popular books which were bought were about spirituality, and in particular Buddhism. The question is then posed to Dr. Senge by Brian Mclaren, "why are books on Buddhism so popular and not books on Christianity?" The answer that was given was this. "I think it's because Buddhism presents itself as a way of life, and Christianity presents itself as a sytem of belief. So I would want to get Christian ministers thinking about how to rediscover their own faith as a way of life, because that's what people are searching for today. That's what they need most."
It was this quote that kind of inspired me to ask the question I did. I think that it is very true that the general image that Christianity gives off is that we are a system of belief. We tell you what and how to believe regarding God and that's pretty much the jist of it. Of course Christians will argue that we are much more than a system of beliefs, but that does not negate that the world views us otherwise. How can Christianity become a way of life and not a system of beliefs? Brian Mclaren goes on in his book to discuss the Ancient Practices of the Christian faith as a way of life which I do find to be very useful. I don't really have a good answer to this question and would be interested in hearing everybody else's thoughts on this as well.
Unfortunately, I have found myself in the 'system of belief' camp for most of my life and am just trying to work through this question for myself. I think as well, that if most of us are honest with ourselves, what we believe is more important than how we live out our Christian lives. Just look at how fast our conversations on this blog turn to technical theological issues which don't really influence how we live our lives. I am definitely guilty of this myself. I am by nature a thinker, and thus I become very analytical trying to work out my 'system of belief'' to the detriment of working on my way of life. I of course have my soap boxes (social action and acceptance being the main ones) but as far as spiritual practices go, I am very much lacking. Sorry, this post got kind of long. I thought it would be quick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
