Monthy Archive: February 2009
« January 2009 | Main | March 2009 »

If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr. No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).

If you want to know more about me, click here.

February 02, 2009

Books , Faith : Location or Trajectory

I’ve written about this before; but God has been working in my life to transform these beliefs into practice so I thought it was time to revisit them in the blog. The point is that many Christians (including myself in years past) define what it means to be a “good Christian” as a bounded set – A good Christian is someone who believes certain things, does certain things, avoids certain things. There is a well defined boundary, and you are either on one side of the line or the other.

The problem with that is that Jesus never seems to operate that way. He was far more pleased with thoroughly messed up people who were at least trying to get closer to God than with people who may have technically been closer to what God wanted but had become satisfied with their level of closeness. His idea of a “good Christian” seems more to be a “centered set” focused on God where what mattered was not where you were but what direction you were moving.

While I have believed this was true for a while, there is often a distance between what we believe and how we react, and God has been working in my life to make this not just a belief but a part of my character.

This all was brought to home recently as I read some of Anne Lamott’s books (“Traveling Merices”, “Plan B”, etc). Anne is a successful Christian author from the San Francisco Bay area (she grew up and lives across the Golden Gate Bridge from the city). Her books are quite popular these days with the new generation of Christians (even though she is actually of the same generation as my wife (also Anne) and I).

And here’s the thing – 20 years ago I would probably have not considered her a Christian at all, and certainly not a “good” one. In her books she refers to God as “He or She” (or sometimes even just “She”), She practices Buddhist meditation, and does other assorted things that I would have said “Christians, at least good ones, don’t do”.

But not now. Now, I can now read her books and see myself in them – a struggling, humble Christian seeking to get closer to God. I can look past the doctrinal issues and can see in her words someone who has experienced God’s hand in her life just the way I experience it in mine – gentle, firm pressure to “get past myself” and focused on God and others. The occasional nudge here, a word there, an experience that highlights the need for Him. The kinds of things Anne talks about are so familiar from my own life that I have no doubt that God is working in her just as He is working in me. So if God is willing to invest in her life, who am I to judge her otherwise?

Now Anne started her journey towards God from a very different place than I did (a place which she documents in frightening detail in “Traveling Mercies”); and being a different person from me, she has resisted God in her journey in different ways that I have, but we have both struggled with things God has demanded of us. As a result, we are today in two very different places relative to where God wants us to be. There are perhaps things I have “gotten right” which is still ahead of her on her path; but there are also things which God has managed to teach her which I am still working through. What matters though is that we are both struggling to allow God to bring us closer to Him.

That’s not to say the things she has wrong don’t matter – I believe they do, just as the things I still have wrong matter. What I am however learning is to give room for God to work in other people’s lives according to His plan, not mine. It is not for me to decide what issues any other Christian needs to focus on now. It isn’t even for me to decide what issues I should be working on in my own life (to claim otherwise is to usurp God’s lordship in my life). We all stand before God and submit to His will for us, and are judged by Him (and not each other) based on how well we follow the path that God has set before us, not how well we follow someone else’s path.

I suspect, living in San Francisco, it is going to be very important to not just believe this is true; but for it to be second nature to me to act based on it being true, so God is driving the point home in my life. Thank you Anne Lamott.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 04, 2009

Life : Of Buskers and Beggers

On Monday, as I went into work there was a street musician (a known "busker" in the UK and elsewhere, affording me the alliterative title for this essay) performing in the MUNI station. He was bluegrass fiddler of significant skill, and with very little thought I dug into my pocket and dropped a bit of money in his violin case. While I don't know the man's story, I would hope based on his skill that he is not homeless; but rather just a musician plying his trade for the public.

As I walked from the station to my office, I passed two of the "regular" beggars who ply that route. One is a man who clearly is much the worse for wear from his life on the street; but his slurred speech and distinctive smell would seem to indicate that some of his wear is self-inflicted by the abuse of alcohol. I passed him by.

The second regular beggar is a man in his 20's who positions himself just far enough away from a popular sandwich place to not be annoying, while close enough to hit up the customers of that establishment. I've seen him walk around, and he appears to be physically healthy but I recognize that there are other kinds of issues which can interfere with a person's ability to find gainful employment. I felt led to give this guy money on one occasion; but not Monday.

On my lunch walk I passed by another MUNI station, and there was a homeless man selling the "Street Sheet". For those unfamiliar with it (or the several institutions like it, such as "The Big Issue" in the UK or "Spare Change News" in Boston), the Street Sheet is a small newspaper published by a homelessness advocacy group. Homeless individuals who are willing to abide by the organization's rules are given copies of the paper for free for them to sell for $1 and are allowed to keep all of the money they collect. While the 8-page tabloid is clearly not worth $1, I make it a point to buy one whenever I see someone selling a new issue.

Later on my walk I passed by an older man wrapped in blankets sitting on a vent. He was not asking for change – in fact he said nothing. He just stared ahead with hopeless eyes that seemed to see nothing (just as most people did not seem to see him). There was a part of me (the Holy Spirit?) who wanted to do something for the man; but I didn't know what to do. Perhaps I should have just talked with him, let him know that someone knew he was there; but instead I walked past him and afterwards felt like the Scribe or Pharisee in the story of the "Good Samaritan".

While all this was going on, I was reminded of a homeless man who frequented our old church in Fremont – I'll call him "John". John would show up to most services and load up plates of food (yes, more than one) from the spread that was there for people during the break in the service, often taking a substantial percentage of the available pastries. He would do likewise at other church events. Here's the thing, as we got to know him we discovered that he was a trained optometrist, and has a brother who is a professional living in L.A. He was quite open about the fact that he could get a job if he wanted to; but chose to live on the street and off of the generosity of others. While John remained welcome within our church community, people knew better than to give him money.

These six people provide a good overview of moral landscape I am trying to find my way around living in San Francisco. There is so much need I see around me, and I just don't know how to respond. I am clearly willing to help those who are making an effort to help themselves; but I recognize that the people who most need help are those who are unable to make such an effort – people who might not be able to do more than ask for change, or perhaps not even be able to do that. Yet some of those people would simply use the money to buy things that would only make their condition worse, and some are in fact able to support themselves and live on the street by choice. That may be only a minority of the people I see on the streets; but their existence is a poison in my mind that I must struggle against.

I try to listen for God's voice within me to know when to help and when to walk by; but it isn't easy, particularly when that voice seems to indicate that what I should give is not my money; but my time (clearly there is work to be done in me). Anne and I have talked about putting together some tiny care packages (non-perishable and no-cooking-needed food and drink) that we could carry around with us wherever we go in the city and give out to people we see. Our assumption is that people who really are hungry would appreciate it, while those who insist on wanting money are more likely to be those who would use that money for unhealthy purposes.

I don't have answers; but God made a point of making me aware of all those people Monday and I thought I would share it.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

February 06, 2009

Faith : Ted Haggard

I've been thinking a lot about the concept of "church discipline" of late, and I will eventually have a post or two on the subject; but there was an article last week in Slate magazine on disgraced pastor Ted Haggard which has generated a lot of buzz on the web and I find myself compelled to comment as well.

The article is written by a friend an associate of Haggard and it raises some very good questions about how effective "the church" has been at forgiving and restoring the man while acknowledging that Haggard has also done some thing which have hurt his cause (not telling the whole story, sending out fund raising letters, appearing on talk shows). The article is quite good on its own and I recommend people read it.

My own personal reaction to the article seems to be a bit different from most of the posts and comments I have seen. Most people either seem to react by saying that what Haggard did was unforgivable (and therefore he should stay "un-restored") or that the church's treatment of him has been unforgivable (and therefore that he should be acceptable back into ministry now that he has repented).

Personally, I think everyone is missing the real problem here because they bring to the debate some key assumptions about the church as an institution. The author of the article actually makes the point without realizing it when he writes:

"New Life Church needed to protect itself and had to shun one of its own in order not to expose itself to financial ruin in the form of fleeing members."

and notes

"A year later, after Haggard caused a stir by sending a fundraising e-mail, his former church rebuked him publicly. . ."

In short, money makes forgiveness and restoration much more complicated (if not practically impossible). If you assume that churches are institutions with property and expenses, then you should not be surprised when their actions are driven by financial concerns and not by Christian virtues. Likewise if you assume that churches have staff that depend on the church for their income, then you should not be surprised when the staff's actions are driven by financial concerns, hiding issues which could effect their employment and rushing to return to ministry to re-establish their income.

The problem is not with Ted Haggard or his former church – they are just doing what comes naturally given the structure we have created around the faith. The problem is that structure which leads people to serve two masters – both God and Money.

The solution, as I have written before, is that The Church is a community of people who support each other in their faith. It has no property or fixed expenses so it has no financial stake to be at risk. It might take up collections for specific projects (such as the special collection for the poor in Jerusalem described in the Bible); but those projects are of limited scope and time. It has no paid staff, so no one's livelihood is at risk if they find themselves in trouble. The only people who earn their living from the faith are those who are sent out of the community (what we would probably call missionaries today, but used to be called apostles), and in their case finances are the least of the risks they are taking. Even then, the model of "short term missions" where people are sent out for a few weeks or months at a time and then return home to their normal jobs is better (even Paul's "missionary Journeys" described in Acts could be viewed this way). As much as possible, the church should avoid "open ended" commitments to support someone.

In an environment like that The Church, and the individual who are a part of it, can focus entirely on what God requires of a situation (honesty, openness, forgiveness, restoration) without concern over money. Wouldn't that be better?

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

February 09, 2009

Life : Church Sabbatical Over

As long-time readers of this blog will know, the church which Anne and I had been attending (and serving as leaders in) for the past several years had been on sabbatical for the past year – we all took the year off and went together to another local church which offered to host us so that everyone who has served in the church could get a much needed rest.

Well, last weekend marked the end of the sabbatical. At that meeting the pastor announced that he does not feel God is leading him to restart the old church, and that we are all therefore free of our commitments to that church and that he was no longer our pastor. Instead, God seems to be leading our old pastor to start a new ministry – an organic/simple/house church of the kind that I have been talking about in this blog – as soon as he finds himself a non-ministry job. People who were involved in the old church will be welcome to join that new group when it starts; but are also free to go elsewhere as God leads them.

On face value, this is a half surprise. It was well known that our old pastor supported the ideas of the organic church movement, and in fact he was the one who recommended Neil Cole’s book “Organic Church” to the leadership team to read. He clearly viewed the kind of churches I have been talking about as a legitimate alternative to more institutional churches (although he did have some concerns about them as well). On the other hand, I always had the sense that he himself was fairly committed to the institutional model and to being a part of a church or ministry staff, so his decision to go that direction was a bit of a surprise. I actually did think this was the direction God had intended for that group; but I thought it might take longer for people to be ready for it. Perhaps the year away from doing institutional ministry was exactly what was needed.

So, where does all that leave Anne and me?

In San Francisco.

Seriously, while we are supportive of our old pastor’s plans, we continue to think that God wants us to get involved in church up here.

The first church we had been “comfortable” with is now out of consideration. After going there a few more times, we were still finding it hard to connect with people, and I started to get concerned that the Sunday messages were always a “lite” form of the gospel – focused on getting along with each other and not so much on “getting along with God.” Actually, having stepped away from them, I think those two factors are connected – I think the kinds of “soft” sermons that are being preached have encouraged a rather self-absorbed congregation who isn’t that interested in who is sitting next to them in church.

So we are now checking out a second church where we have already had some really great conversations with people before and after service and there are indications that we may be able to get together with some people outside of church. On top of that, all of the sermons we have heard have actually been quite strong. In January there was a series on spiritual disciplines (prayer, bible study, meditation, fasting, etc.) and this week he started a series talking about the “Seven Deadly Sins (and their complimentary virtues)” While, the presentation is fairly cool (he often uses film clips to illustrate points), the pastor does not hesitate to say the hard stuff. This week Anne and I are going to check out one of the home groups.

On top of that, our old pastor has been feeding us contacts from the organic/simple/house church movement. Turns out there’s another Vineyard pastor who left his institutional church to start a house church network and is trying to get the denomination to formally support this as an alternative model. Our pastor made introductions for us as well, and I have started following this guy’s blog. What’s more, this other pastor was able to put Anne and me in contact with another (non-Vineyard) simple church leader in our area, and he was able to introduce us to 4 other people in San Francisco who want to start an organic/simple/house church network here. We all plan to meet in a couple weeks to start to get to know one another. So it is quite possible that we may be starting something like that by the end of the year.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 10, 2009

Life : The world is once again safe for ellipsis

Commenters on this blog (one in particular) have been tripping over the fact that the only way I had discovered to filter out a particularly annoying source of unsolicited and unrelated comments was to moderate any post that contained three periods in a row.

Well, it appears that that source of rogue comments has moved on to other things and I am able to remove that moderate rule, so feel free to use ellipsis with abandon... and without fear of moderation.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 11, 2009

Faith : "Come with me if you want to live"

(Please bear with this post – it does make a point to two by the end.)

The title of this post is one of the catch phrases of the "Terminator" series of movies and TV show. In is first spoken by Kyle Reese to Sarah Connor in "The Terminator" as he offers to save her from the robot assassin from the future. In the second movie it is spoken by the "good" terminator twice – once to John Connor and then to Sarah Connor. In the pilot episode of the TV series, it is spoken by "Cameron" (another "good" terminator) to John Connor.

What's I want to explore for a moment is just how much is packed into that eight-word offer.

* The offer implies that there is a danger. What's more, at least in the first film, it is a danger that that the person being spoken to does not understand. In fact it is a danger that no rational person would believe – time traveling robots sent from the future to kill a person before they can do something that brings about the salvation of humanity. Preposterous.

* The offer is also fundamentally a request for trust spoken by a party who has not yet earned that trust. The person speaking the phrase is essentially saying "You don't know me; but I need you to trust me when I say that you are in danger and trust that I know how to rescue you". In fact in "Terminator 2", there is a reason to not trust the individual (they look just like someone who wanted to cause harm previously).

* The offer is an offer of an ongoing relationship (in which that trust that was given is now earned). While phrased as a single action, "come with me", what was required was much more than following the person for a couple of hours. The real nature of the offer is "If you want to live, you need to start doing what I say when I say it, my first order being to come with me". In each case, the result of the accepted offer is a relationship (an intimate one in the case of Kyle and Sarah) where one person commits to protect the other in exchange for the other doing what the first says.

* The offer is not a promise of an easy life. In each case, what follows is actually a constant struggle. In fact one of the key themes of the TV series is John Connor struggling with the fact that he can never have a "normal life." Yet for all its travails, the result of the offer is better than the alternative (being assassinated).

So what's the point of all this analysis of a line from a science fiction show?

I was struck the other day reading Dietrich Bonheoffer's "The Cost of Discipleship" as he talked about all that was implied when Jesus said to His disciples-to-be "Come, follow me." In many ways, what Jesus is saying to humanity is "Come with me if you want to LIVE" with all of the same implications as above.

* Jesus warns us that there is danger in this life and in the life to come. This danger is something that people really don't understand and many people consider irrational to believe in (heaven? the devil? preposterous!)

* Jesus fundamentally is asking us to trust Him before He has had a chance to prove He is worthy of that trust. Christians call that faith. In fact, many people's preconceived ideas of God make trusting Him difficult (think of the Connors' challenge to trust in Terminator 2).

* Jesus is not looking for a one time action; but an ongoing relationship (in which He earns the trust we have given to Him). He needs us to do what He says when He says it so that we can be protected from the dangers that are out there. That relationship is however intended to be more than just a protector/protectee relationship – Jesus is looking for something more intimate than that.

* Jesus does not promise that the resulting life will be easy, and in fact He promises all sorts of challenges if we follow Him. He does however promise that the results will be better than the alternative.

So, Jesus us saying to us all "Come with me if you really want to live". Who is willing to take Him up on that offer?

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

February 13, 2009

Life : In word mode

It may have been noticed that I have been blogging a bit more of late. This is a reflection of the fact that I have been in "word mode" as opposed to "code mode" lately. Every couple of years my employer holds a big internal engineering training event – bringing in engineers from all of our offices to get trained on our latest technologies. The latest one is in a couple of week and given my position in the company I am busy preparing presentations and writing documentation.

The side effect of this is that my brain is current revved up to generate words, which I have found is a quite different mode for me than my state of mind when I have been spending most of my time writing code. When I spend most of my day writing code, generating prose is possible but takes much more effort on my part. Thankfully since I have been generating prose most of the day recently, prose for this blog comes quickly and easily for me.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 18, 2009

Introspection , Life , Writing : Good question, Anne

I took last Friday off, which together with Monday being a holiday meant that I had a nice 4-day weekend. On Monday night Anne asked me a very good question for which I didn't have a great answer, and it has got me thinking (and blogging). Thanks Anne.

As background, several weeks ago Anne asked me another good question; but one which I have thought about a lot and therefore had a ready answer. She asked me "If you knew you only had 2 months to live, what would you do". My answer, without any hesitation, was "write". The reality is that while there certainly things I hope to do someday before I die; in most cases I would not have any regrets if I did not get to do them. I believe I have a life after this one, and that gives a very different sense of perspective and value on what I do here. Will I really care after 1000 years of being with God if I never visited Tokyo in this life? I suspect not.

The only real exception to that is that I have done a lot of thinking in my life about a lot of topics and have not communicated most of my thoughts to anyone else. While I may still be wrong in many of my opinions, to go on to what's next without communicating the fruits of my mental labors (whatever their value) to anyone here would seem like a waste to me. So, if I knew I was going to die soon, I would focus on getting down in black and white as many of my thoughts as I could – kind of my version of "The Last Lecture".

That wasn't however the good question Anne asked this week.

Monday night, Anne first repeated the same question above, and I gave the same reply: "write". Then she asked: if that was true, why did I not spend any of this long weekend writing?

D'oh

What I actually did this weekend was for the most part read and spend 12 hours playing a computer game (I am budgeting the time I spend playing games, and that was the limit I set for myself – I actually ran over by about an hour when I add up the sessions). I had actually intended to write some on Sunday; but I never actually got around to it.

Anne's question is an important one. If writing is what I would spend my last weeks doing, I really should be making more of an effort to spend time doing it now. Just as I am limiting the time I spend playing games, I should be setting aside time each week to write, and long weekends should have extra time allocated to a task that is so important to me.

Now part of the problem is that other than this blog, I'm not sure how to start attacking the other writing projects I have. There are, conceptually at least, several books I would like to write (some fiction, some non-fiction); but every time I have tried to start one I have been overwhelmed by the enormity of the task (a common problem with writers). The recommend solution is to just start writing and worry about the "big picture" later after you have some pieces done, understanding that the pieces may well need to be re-written.

Another part of the problem is that the unread books on my shelf continue to weigh on me psychologically, and I want to spend time reading to reduce their number (that was certainly what motivated me this weekend). Particularly with the Kindle2 showing up in a couple of weeks, I want to focus on clearing out the old "atom" books before I start in with the "bits" ones.

Regardless, Anne is right. If writing is important enough to me that I would spend my last days doing it, I really do need to make a greater effort to do it now. I haven't quite thought through how to organize myself for that; but it is a change I need to make.

Again, thanks Anne.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

February 20, 2009

Faith , Introspection : Good Comment, Roland

This post is actually a reply of sorts to Roland's comment on Wednesday's post. It got rather lengthy so I decided to make a post of it.

I would certainly agree that I am unlikely to care about what games I played in this life when I have been in God presence for 1000 years, although even from an eternal perspective there is a value to games I will get to in a moment.

I do however think it is inconsistent (or at least biased) to say TV and movies will be of little value but I would still care about the books I have read after 1000 years with God. What is it about books that make them such a superior medium that I will value the insights I gain from them and not from other sources? Or is it the thought that fiction (whether books, TV, or movies) will not be valued, and that most of the books I read are non-fiction and therefore will retain value while most of the TV and movies I watch are non-fiction and therefore won't? If that is the point, I would encourage reading (or see the DVD of) "Epic" which I have praised on this blog before. Fiction can often give insights that are hard to describe in direct prose.

As to the value of writing things vs. doing more reading, I agree that the value does depend some on how many people are exposed to what I write, and I do certainly desire to get more widely published than this blog. Still, if all of my writings help only one person improve their relationship with God, I'd like to think I would value that more in 1000 years than any amount of stuffing more information into my already full head. I do value reading – if nothing else it might provide some inspiration of new ways to express an idea in my own writing, or better yet point out some flaw in my thinking before I commit it to prose; but I think I have reached a point in my life where my focus needs to be on giving what I have gained so far and less on what more I can get. This is true in both a material sense and in an intellectual and spiritual sense.

As to the value of games (as well as TV and movies), while I enjoy computer games for my own pleasure, I believe they also serve a Kingdom purpose. Part of my commission as a Christian is to share my faith with others. That is best done with people I have relationships with. Those relationships often begin with common interests like games, books, television, and movies. I have seen Christians who cloister themselves reading only Christian books and watching only Christian media who are then unable to connect with people outside the faith. They tend to be failures in sharing their faith because they have no common ground with those who do not believe. On the other hand, I have often run into people who are willing to hear me out about my relationship with Jesus because I have already establish that I am a "normal person" by my enjoyment of popular media, including games. There are specific examples I can think of where this was true. Many people are afraid of Christianity because they think they need to give up everything that is fun if they become a Christian. It is important that my life demonstrates at least some counterexamples to that, and for me games and TV serve that purpose (as well as being fun).

As Christians we are commanded to be “in the world, but not of it”. My investment in entertainment serves a double purpose – my personal enjoyment, but also as a means to stay “in the world.” The challenge then becomes to not cross the line between “being in the world” and “being of the world”. I have been learning over the past few years how to disciple myself in that regard – to have television, movies and games in my life without allowing them to rule it. Sometimes I still fail at that; but I am getting much better than I once was.

A bit of a rambling reply; but you raised so many interesting points in your comment. Thanks, Ro.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 23, 2009

Faith : So what IS of value?

Last week I asked the question "What will still be of value after 1000 years of being in God's presence after I die?" I think this is actually a key question that Christians should be asking themselves constantly – it is the right way to determine what really matters in this life (and I say that as someone whose life is not clearly aligned with the answer I am about to give).

I believe the answer to that question is fairly simple: relationships. What we will still value after 1000 years with God will be are our relationships with God, with each other, and with ourselves. Nothing else will last that long. Material goods will be left behind, and will any status and positions we accumulated in this life. Yet people will still exist and therefore our relationships with them will continue to exist. I claim that after 1000 years, those relationship will be the only things from this life that we will possibly still care about.

And I think Jesus said the same thing, although he phrased it differently.

When asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus replied "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40 NIV). But when you really love someone, your actions build your relationship with them in a positive way. So the effect of following these two commands, that Jesus said encompassed everything that God had ever said to us, is to build good relationships with God and with each other. I believe the reason these commands are so important is that following them is the only way to establish value that is going to outlast this life.

For all the other issues I have with the LDS (the "Mormons"), this is something I think they got right. Their whole faith is centered on the idea that the family is eternal as long as it is united in God, and therefore family relationships and the relationships of family members to God are the most valuable things in the world. Because of this, they put a lot of energy into those relationships. There are many Christians who could learn from their example.

So perhaps a better way for Christians to determine what is of value in this life is to ask "What effect does this have on my relationships?" Does it help build my relationship with God? Does it enable me to build more and better relationships with other people? Does it help me view myself in a more honest and accurate way (and therefore build a better relationship with myself)? Then it has at least some eternal value, and the more it does these things, the more valuable it is. Conversely, things which harm your relationship with God, with others, or give you a distorted relationship with yourself are of negative eternal value.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

February 25, 2009

Faith : More on eternal value

There is another alternative to consider when pondering "What will still be of value after 1000 years of being in God's presence after I die?" What if you do not end up with a relationship with God that outlasts this life?

While we live this life, we experience the benefits of God's desire to establish a relationship with us. As Jesus is recorded saying in Matthew: "He makes his sun rise on people whether they are good or evil. He lets rain fall on them whether they are just or unjust". Yet my understanding is that when this life is over, we will have chosen whether we want a relationship with God (and all that implies) or not. For those who, for whatever reason, choose not to pursue a relationship with God in this life, God will give them what they desire – an existence completely without Him and His benevolence.

In popular culture, this is known as "hell".

Now there are a whole lot of ideas that have accumulated in the culture about the fate of those who do not choose God, and it is actually quite hard to justify a lot of them by looking at the Bible. Even many of those ideas that do have some Biblical foundation, it is hard to know if the passages are meant to be read literally or as metaphorically. It is clear that it will be a life of suffering and despair; but it is less clear how much of that that suffering will be physical (the traditional flames, etc.) or emotional and spiritual.

I do however believe it will be an existence completely without God.

The question them becomes – what would life be like if God completely withdrew himself from the situation? The world we live in today is hard and painful, and there are atrocities that occur around the world on a fairly constant basis. Yet as I read scriptures I get the sense that for all the evil that does exists in the world, God is still holding back the worst of it. Neither The Enemy nor mankind's own worst impulse have free reign because God wants to give people an opportunity to turn to Him. As Paul wrote in Romans "Don’t you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can’t you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin?" Perhaps the despair of trying to eek out an existence completely without God's may be all the suffering that is needed to constitute "hell". I don't know; but I certainly don't want to find out first hand.

So what things in this life would still be thought of as valuable after 1000 years of existence completely without God? What in this world is possibly so valuable that it is worth doing without God's love for the rest of eternity?

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 27, 2009

Faith : Church Discipline

There are a lot of tough passages in the Bible that I struggle to understand, and even a few that I wish I could use my black highlighter on. One of those is the 5th chapter of 1 Corinthians.

Paul started the church at Corinth on one of his missionary journeys; but from the records we have it appears to have been one of his “problem children” – a dysfunctional church (at least for some period of time). What we know of as “1 Corinthians” is one of a series of letters Paul wrote to them to answer some of their questions and to provide some unsolicited admonitions. Chapter 5 is one of the latter. Now one of the problems we have interpreting this passage is that it doesn’t provide much of the background, so we are clearly missing some key details. What is clear is that there is someone in the congregation who is involved in a sexual relationship with “his father’s wife” which is taken to mean his step mother. What’s more, there seems to have been some element of “boasting” related to this man being in the congregation, although how and why is unclear. Regardless, Paul come down hard on them for their acceptance of this man, and orders them to expel him from the community. Later (in 2 Corinthians), it appears that the church followed Paul’s orders and as a result of being disfellowshipped the man repented and now Paul is saying they should welcome him back into the community.

Now I believe in church discipline. Even Jesus taught the principles on which it should work in Matthew 18:15-17. Over my years as a Christian I have been witness to these principles being applied on several occasions. There was the man (who clearly had some spiritual issues related to money) who kept trying to get other people in the congregation involved in his latest get-rich-quick schemes, resulting in some people (who were perhaps too trusting of a “brother in Christ”) losing money. Then there was the man whose actions towards some of the young women of the congregation were inappropriate. In each case there were approached privately, then by the church leadership ,and were finally asked to no longer participate in the church.

The key similarity in these examples, and in of all of the cases I have been aware of, was that the individual was considered a danger to others in the community. They were doing things that either directly harmed other people or were a direct temptation to others. It would have been irresponsible to have allowed them to continue being part of the fellowship when they failed to change their behavior.

And that’s why I struggle with 1 Cor 5 – because it is not clear from what it written that the man in Corinth posed any danger to anyone else. Paul goes on at length about how contemptible the man’s behavior is (even observing that not even the “pagans” would accept what he does), and it sure seems that from Paul’s’ point of view, the man is too much of a sinner to allow to be a part of the community.

But that goes against almost everything else I understand about The Church. As L. L. Nash says, “A church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.” Jesus himself freely hung around with notorious sinners who were not accepted by the culture at large, and it is clear from the gospels that his disciples were far from perfect. As I understand it, The Church is meant to be a community in which we can get mutual support as God works in us to clean up the mess that we are. I have written in this blog before about how I feel it is presumptuous for Christians to believe they know what issues in someone else’s lives need to be dealt with “now”, yet that seems to be exactly what Paul is doing. I still don’t know how to process this passage.

Of course, as I already noted, we don’t have the whole story. Perhaps the person was in leadership in the church. There are several places in the Bible that establish that people in leadership are held to a higher standard, although it would seem that notoriously sinful leaders should only be asked to give up their leadership position, not be asked to leave the community. Or perhaps the person was causing harm to other people; although given the behavior that is described, it is hard to see how. Perhaps his step-mother was also part of the congregation and there was a sense that she was willing to repent; but he was keeping the pressure on in the relationship. Another possibility is there was some reason why it was in fact obvious that his relationship to his step-mother was what God wanted to change next – perhaps there was a prophetic word to that effect, although I can’t see how that would have become general knowledge. I can certainly agree that the man’s presence in the community is not a cause for boasting; but that still leaves room for allowing him to work through this privately.

So the bottom line is that I don’t understand why God conspired to have that passage preserved for us to read and be instructed by when it seems to me that key parts of the story are missing. I take on faith that there is a reason it is there in the form it is in; but I don’t know what it is, and therefore my own understandings of church discipline (focus on people who are a danger to others, give room for all other kinds of sinners to grow in The Lord) is suspect.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)