Traveling

Sometimes when I think from where I've come in my spiritual walk, I'm amazed at how far I've traveled and wonder what took me so long to get to this place. I think this particularly when I examine the inconsistencies in belief I either ignored or didn't recognize. Then this question comes to me. How far do I still have to go?

Leadership

Frank Viola has written a blogpost on leadership in the church. I posted it to my Facebook page, but also want to link to it here. This is what I said about it on my FB page:

I am in great agreement with this post. I think much of what has gone wrong in the church is that we no longer trust the Spirit to lead and instead set up barriers in order to protect what God has promised to sustain. In essence, we desire to control and mechanize what is a living organism, the body of Christ.

Why would we want to do that if we really believed that Jesus gives life and leads and protects? What would the church be like if we functioned as a body, instead of like a business or government?  Jesus stood the world's ideas of leadership and authority on their head. What if we embraced that truth instead of trying to turn them back around?

These thoughts have been bubbling up in my consciousness for a while now, as those of you who read my blog know, at least a decade. Yes, I'm a slow learner. They go against everything our world tells us, don't they? No wonder the church keeps sliding into these models when we as members continue to. Moment by moment I want to live in the upside down world in which Jesus lives. It means giving up control, authority, and self interest. I hope that one day I see Jesus's view of power and authority as the real, intuitive way.

Kyrie Eleison.

Not Ranting And Raving, But Convicted

Over at IMonk, Jeff Dunn is doing a bit of ranting and raving, and really, I don't blame him.  As I have been studying the Gospel of Luke, I have become more and more convicted that I don't really follow Christ as he calls me to, and more than that, I for the most part do not see the church, at least here in America following him as he calls us either.

One of the things that I see relates to what Dunn is preaching against is the substitute of technique for obedience to our Lord.  It is the easy road and one that suits our society perfectly.  We are a technique oriented people. It is how we live.  It is how we control.  It is also the opposite of faith.

Have issues with money?  Well, my goodness, don't give it away and be overly generous out of love for God and man.  Disregard the widow and her two mites.  What a fool she was to not put at least 10% away in savings.  Jesus only meant for the rich, young ruler to give everything away, not anyone else.  He wouldn't ask that of you or me.  Look at all the Old Testament writings that encourage savings and thrift.  Just don't bother reading the prophets and of God's judgement because of not helping the poor and widows.  We're not greedy like those Israelites.  And don't get all excited about how the earliest church shared everything they had with one another.  That would be too radical and was only for that time and place anyway.  God wouldn't ask that of us.  Instead, follow this formula and watch your money grow!

Having marriage problems?  It has nothing to do with dying to self and submitting to one another out of love for Christ.  Nooooo.  It is really because the husband isn't being respected or the woman isn't being loved, or you just aren't having enough date nights, or you haven't set up the right boundaries, or you don't speak the other's love language, or, well you get the idea.

What if we really died to self and lived to Christ?  What if we gave so generously that none of our brothers and sisters in Christ were in need?  What if we sacrificed our comfort that the poorest in our community knew they didn't have to worry about their daily needs, because Christ's representatives lived near them and wouldn't let them be in want?  What if instead of worrying about being taken advantage of, we simply said, "Come."?

What would our marriages and families look like if we consistently put the other first?  What if we stopped worrying about our needs being met and instead sought out ways to serve the other?

What if we stopped searching for a magic formula and simply said, "I surrender.  I am a slave.  I have no rights.  My trust and my hope are entirely in the Lord."?

Do we take Jesus words seriously?  Do we really believe them?  I must not, because I do not follow them.  I cannot, because I do not daily take up my cross.  This is what Peter Kreeft calls moral insanity.  It is what Jesus says leads to death.  It is sin.

I am morally insane.  Jesus, come heal me.  I do not take up my cross.  Jesus, help me bear the burden.  I do not trust the one who gives life.  Jesus, I believe, help my unbelief.

Interview with D'Souza

Here's an interview with Dinesh D'Souza in Salvo Magazine. D'Souza's book, What's So Great About Christianity was a delightful surprise when I read it about a year ago. Too many times when an author delves into apologetics, the arguments are weak or they build up straw men to tear down. Not so with WSGAC. Find the book and read it, it's worth the effort. In the meantime, check out the interview. Here's a sample:

If you really look at the motivations of contemporary atheists, you'll find that they don't even really reject Christian theology. It's not as if the atheist objects to the resurrection or the parting of the sea; rather, it is Christian morality to which atheists object, particularly Christian moral prohibitions in the area of sex. The atheist looks at all of Christianity's "thou shalt nots"—homosexuality is bad; divorce is bad; adultery is bad; premarital sex is bad—and then looks at his own life and says, "If these things are really bad, then I'm a bad guy. But I'm not a bad guy; I'm a great guy. I must thus reinterpret or (preferably) abolish all of these accusatory teachings that are putting me in a bad light."

How does one do that? One way is liberal Christianity—you simply reinterpret Christian teachings as if they don't really mean what they say. The better way, of course, is to ask where morality comes from. Well, it comes from one of two places. It either comes from ourselves—these are the rules that we make up as we go along—or it comes from some transcendent source. To get rid of God, then, is to remove the shadow of moral judgment. This doesn't mean that you completely eliminate morality, but it does mean that you reduce morality to a tool that human societies construct for their own advantages. It means that morality can change, and that old rules can be set aside. You can see why this would be a very attractive proposition for the guy who wants to live his life unmolested by the injunctions and prohibitions of Christian morality.

Christopher Hitchens. Believer?

This just up over at The Corner on National Review. It appears that Mike Potemra has just witnessed a debate over the existence of God between Christopher Hitchens and Msgr. Lorenzo Albacete. I've always loved reading Hitchen's articles. He is so clear, biting, passionate and logical, except not so clear and logical when he writes about God. From Mike's witness, Hitchen's problem is confusing professed God followers with God Himself. Never a good idea, though some of His followers get confused on that point sometimes also.