I had coffee by accident with an older gentleman (O.G.) this morning…my regular coffee buddy wasn’t able to make it so I was reading and then O.G. sat down and we talked. Old is getting more and more relative as I accelerate away from birth but I’d say O.G. was about 76ish. He was having his coffee and getting ready to head back to the farm to assist some cows in the birthing process.

 

We talked a bit and conversation led to his resigned realization that one day in the not too distant future he’ll lose his license and then he won’t be heading up to the farm anymore to help his son out. "That’ll be it then I guess" was what he said. It sounded pretty final, it sounded tired and a little regretful.

 

I think what he was getting at was once he no longer had anything "useful" to do his days would be numbered.

 

There was a time in our culture (and still is a time in other cultures) when families would take in grandparents and continue to honor them by allowing them to contribute in their old age. Communities were broad enough that even the elderly without children were welcomed into adoptive families and cared for. Contributions would vary from accessible wisdom to helping with the kids to simply being a presence in the lives of younger family members, teaching them the value of life in all its phases by allowing others to take care of them.

 

I really do imagine that when O.G.’s license is taken away and he is no longer able to help out at the farm he’ll likely diminish and pass on having past a point of feeling useful or needed. I can’t help but wonder if our elders would live longer lives if they could live with and be taken care of by the generations they spawned. I can’t help but wonder if their end years would somehow be better if they were surrounded by family.

 

I know there are special needs for some that require special training. I know there are circumstances where the best possible situation for the elderly is to be in a place where their specific needs can be well met. I understand that we, as a culture, are busy with our jobs and raising our own children. I know that it would add massive marital and financial stress. Still, it makes me wonder if we are missing something. It makes me wonder where I will be when I am 80. I think like most people I’d love to live with one of my sons or my daughter but I also wouldn’t want to be a burden. I would "understand" that they have lives too though…

 

 

The questions of what do I believe and what must I believe often find their way into my thoughts. Belief is an interesting and sometimes conflict laden area. I have learned that people have no problem holding two or more beliefs that are diametrically opposed to each other. For instance one can believe that abortion is absolutely wrong in all instances and without exception based upon sanctity of human life arguments (I am one of those people) but can still manage to support a war built on shaky reasoning that sees thousands of those same human lives sacrificed regularly.

 

I look at belief like a shadow or an eclipse; there is an umbra (the deep defined central region of the shadow) and a penumbra (the much larger area of the shadow in the outlying surrounding region that is a less defined gray mix of light and dark).

 

In terms of my own belief it goes without saying that I believe what the Bible tells me (which is ironic because I am saying it). Of course this statement is vague and simplistic and does not come close to revealing the nuanced nature of my reading of scripture and all that has yet to be revealed to me.

 

If one were to ask me "what do you believe?" how do I tell them without keeping them captive for 72 hours while I explain it all? I don’t want to simply say "go read the Bible, this is what I believe" because there are many Christians who have read the Bible and still manage to disagree about things in spectacular fashion.

 

I could say however that they could read the following in order of focus as though moving from the centre of the umbra to the outer edges of the penumbra:

 

Umbra:

 

1. Acts 13:30-31

2. Apostles’ Creed

3. Nicene Creed

 

Penumbra:

 

1. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

2. Basic Christianity by John Stott

3. Simply Christian by N.T. Wright

 

If a person were to read all of these things they would come to a very good understanding of what I believe. At its core my faith is simple and unchangeable but it increases in complexity and flex towards the outer edges. If you have ever been confused or curious about what I believe – the above list is a good start…and if you disagree or agree maybe this is the beginning of a conversation we can have – who knows?

 

Cheers!

 

There is a certain tone of us & them that seems to be increasing in volume throughout the global church. It takes on many identities: evangelical & post-modern, west & the global south, catholic & protestant, incrowd & outcast, etc. Some claim to be involved in conversation or dialogue but this dialogue often turns into diatribe, dichotomy, and divisiveness.

 

Some christians speak of the church as though they are no longer a part of it. As though they could somehow separate themselves from the body of Christ. Other christians validate this skewed perspective by taking ownership of the church and allowing the self-professed outcasts to remain outcast – as though they had this kind of authority over the Son of Man. It is as though the hand points to the eye and says "if it weren’t for you all would be well here" and all the while the eye responds "if things are so bad then perhaps you should leave" failing to see the ridiculousness of their words.

 

Both perspectives are ultimately poor ones because both fail to see the nature of Christ’s body as a unity (whether we feel that way or not). Perhaps the great struggle in the church today is a failure of christians to love Christ as we should. When one fails to love oneself the response is often conflicted self-loathing and certainly disgust of others. When the body of Christ fail’s to love itself this same thing occurs.

 

The body of Christ is a human body but it is indwelt with the eternal spirit of God. This same body has been broken, torn and hung on a cross. It has been resurrected by this same Spirit but it still bears the marks. The body must not look at the wounds as imperfections but as evidence of eternal love and forgiveness. We must not look on each other as cancerous imperfections needing to be excised but as evidence of our need for love and forgiveness. If we fail to do this we will not be able to love and forgive those outside the body…Christ is the head and directs us in all that we do while we are the broken body bearing the wounds of sacrifice for a reason.

 

There is no us and them, there is only Christ.

 

I asked my God

to speak to me

in a dream last night

and then I fell asleep

I awoke in a daze

and looked at the clock –

 

3:16 re(a)d in the dark

 

numeric belief

not condemnation

but salvation

 

I just received a copy of N.T. Wright’s book The Resurrection of the Son of God (vol 3 in the series Christian Origins and the Question of God). I am pretty excited about this book as it comes VERY highly recommended and the author is an exceptional pastor/theologian. Sadly the book is 817 pages, and given my time for reading these days I may be finished around 2011.

 

If you have read this or if you have read about it drop me a note and let me know your thoughts.

 

 

 

I had a brief discussion the other day about the differences between the health & prosperity gospel preachers and emergent preachers. In this case a little knowledge is a dangerous thing I think.

 

It occurs to me that the primary reason we would criticize the health & prosperity gospel movement (legititmately so) is because it seems primarily motivated by the needs of the culture it is trying to serve rather than the whole message of scripture. It may be a chicken & egg question – which came first the message or the crowd? I mean it seems to me that the movement has developed to a point where it has understood a particular desire in culture and has found aspects of the Word to satiate this need. God can bless you. God will bless you. These blessings often are presented in worldly terms such as health and wealth. It is a presentation of the incomplete truth.

 

The question I have is simple. Have the various and ever-changing folks who make up the indefinable movement (very post-modern) called the emerging church by some done anything different from the prosperity gospel folks? Is the emerging church a movement of people who, like the health & prosperity gospel folks, have first and foremost tapped into a cultural need within a certain demographic and have found a set of scriptural interpretations that meet that need? I know where I would align myself if I were given only these two options however this is not the point. The point is where do we find a complete and compelling presentation of truth (Jesus Christ) today?

 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer predicted that the church of the 21st century would likely become a remnant forced into the role of safe-guarding truth until culture was ready to hear it again, in its uncompromised form. If churches and denominations are the God blessed human institutions created to assist in diseminating truth to the world perhaps they all fall into the same category as the health & prosperity gospel and the emergent forms. Are we all offering incomplete pictures of Christ, incomplete truth modelled more after the cultures we are in (or come from in the case of the more traditional)? Do we learn the needs of the culture and then force Christ into that or do we bring the compelling Christ to culture and allow Him to speak contextually to that culture?

 

No answers, just questions to ponder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Check this out!

 

 

 

 

I was reading a novel the other day and, for the most part, it was a very good novel (as modern fiction goes) except for two scenes of gratuitous sex. By gratuitous I mean that both incidents occured in the narrative rather like a traffic accident. They appeared out of nowhere and left you rather stunned and surprised to continue on with the narrative. There was no plot thread leading you to believe these incidents were going to happen…they just appeared, and then disappeared.

 

It occured to me that perhaps this is the nature of sex in many people’s lives. Perhaps this is it’s nature in the author’s life…maybe it appears in his life like a traffic accident with no marital plotline to carry it along. There is no foreshadowing of it’s occurance. It is opportunistic and invades the story of a person’s life like a cold virus…suddenly and without warning leaving when least expected. After some time to gain one’s bearings the person’s story continues until the next surprise visit.

 

If marriage is the plot within which sexual intimacy is woven then when sex is encountered it makes sense. It doesn’t come as a surprise or a shock and it doesn’t leave one disheveled and disoriented in need of recuperation and with a sense of having lost what one never had. As annoying as the incidents were in the novel maybe they are realistic portrayals of sex in the world today…a world which seems to have little time for the epic narrative of marriage prefering the short, free verse poems of hit-and-run romances that are never long enough to offer significant value.

 

I have to think about this more.