One thing really caught my attention when I read the names on these lists. I only knew two names on the names on the [American] speakers list, but twelve on the Canadian list. Furthermore, two on the Canadian list are direct acquaintances, and probably half of the women on the Canadian list are acquaintances of acquaintances.
It really reminded me of how small the Canadian Christian community is. If I turn on the TV, I get one Christian channel. The other multi-faith channel is currently in the process of being re-branded to “focus on more general entertainment programming for the 45 and older demographic.”
In my immediate community of 25,000 there is no evangelical church of more than about 60 people. Most of the mainline churches are struggling in similar ways. So if you are an evangelical christian in my community you have three choices: Attend a small struggling Pentecostal church, attend a mainline church, or attend a church outside of the community. I have tried all three of the options and have settled on number three. I posted a few weeks ago about how difficult I find this, but really don’t have much in the way of alternatives.
I should note that the picture in Western Canada is quite different to that in Eastern Canada, or at least in the larger urban areas of Western Canada.
Is my story uniquely Canadian? Or do some of our American or overseas friends find themselves in similar situations? What is life like in your neck of the woods? What kind of options do you have when it comes to church and Christian community? If you would rather just comment on either of the lists, feel free to do so as well.
Note from CM:
Before I write today’s post, I must say that yesterday’s discussion provides a superb example of why I love being part of Internet Monk. That was one of the most thoughtful and respectful conversations I’ve ever been privileged to witness.
I had a busy day at work so wasn’t able to participate too much, but I’m not sure I would have done so anyway. It was a joy just to read and ponder what people were saying.
If you didn’t get a chance to read yesterday’s comments, I encourage you to take some time to consider them. You’ll be challenged and encouraged.
* * *
Today, a quote from Richard Rohr that further explores the themes of change and transformation, the two halves of life, and how, in counterintuitive fashion, the way up is down and the way to life is through death. The seed must fall into the ground and die in order to bear much fruit. The last shall be first.
Blessed are the losers, for only they shall know true “winning.”
By denying their pain, avoiding the necessary falling, many have kept themselves from their own spiritual depths—and therefore have been kept from their own spiritual heights. First-half-of-life religion is almost always about various types of purity codes or “thou shalt nots” to keep us up, clear, clean, and together, like good Boy and Girl Scouts. A certain kind of “purity” and self-discipline is also “behovely,” at least for a while in the first half of life, as the Jewish Torah brilliantly presents. I was a good Star Scout myself and a Catholic altar boy besides, who rode my bike to serve the 6 A.M. mass when I was merely ten years old. I hope you are as impressed as I was with myself.
Because none of us desire a downward path to growth through imperfection, seek it, or even suspect it, we have to get the message with the authority of a “divine revelation.” So Jesus makes it into a central axiom: the “last” really do have a head start in moving toward “first,” and those who spend too much time trying to be “first” will never get there. Jesus says this clearly in several places and in numerous parables, although those of us still on the first journey just cannot hear this. It has been considered mere religious fluff, as most of Western history has made rather clear. Our resistance to the message is so great that it could be called outright denial, even among sincere Christians. The human ego prefers anything, just about anything, to falling or changing or dying. The ego is that part of you that loves the status quo, even when it is not working. It attaches to past and present, and fears the future.
Running Michael Spencer’s classic essay “When I Am Weak” yesterday raised questions that have been part of the discussion here on Internet Monk for many years. Certain theological terms have always sparked debate here about the nature of the Christian life:
Sanctification
Transformation
Life change
Spiritual growth
Faith or spiritual formation
Words like these and the concepts they represent are used in Christian circles to teach that followers of Jesus will show forth a different kind of life and experience a progressive growth in Christlikeness as they go on in the Christian life.
Our understanding and conversation gets notoriously tricky at this very point.
What is “change”? Who defines it? Is there a particular amount of change that indicates God’s work? If I fall below the minimum amount, what does that say about my relationship with Christ? How do I know that God is changing me or whether I’m simply growing up or making decisions on my own to change? What if I think I’ve fundamentally changed in a certain way and then go through a life experience that changes me back to the way I was before? Are there certain specific changes that are “required” and the same for everyone? How do I know if I’m really changing or just conforming to the expectations of those around me? Can I know for sure? And what are we to make of it when people who don’t follow Jesus experience change in their lives that is profound and good?
This is what Michael said in yesterday’s post:
I suppose some of us are getting better. For instance, my temper is better than it used to be. Of course, the reason my temper is better, is that in the process of cleaning up the mess I’ve made of my family with my temper, I’ve discovered about twenty other major character flaws that were growing, unchecked, in my personality. I’ve inventoried the havoc I’ve caused in this short life of mine, and it turns out “temper problem” is way too simple to describe the mess that is me.
On the other hand, Gordon MacDonald, I man I greatly admire, felt that we can know “How to Spot a Transformed Christian.” He listed twelve “outward signs of the inner reality.”
According to him, a transformed Christian …
Has an undiluted devotion to Jesus.
Pursues a biblically informed view of the world.
Is intentional and disciplined in seeking God’s direction in life.
Worships, and has a spirit of continuous repentance.
Builds healthy, reciprocal human relationships.
Knows how to engage the larger world where faith is not necessarily understood.
Is aware of personal “call” and unique competencies.
Is merciful and generous.
Appreciates that suffering is part of faithfulness to Jesus.
Is eager and ready to express the content of his faith.
Overflows with thankfulness.
Has a passion for reconciliation.
But then again, Mark Galli, whom I also appreciate for his wisdom, wrote the following in a post we ran a couple of years ago, called The Evangelical Myth of “Transformation”:
I just keep on coming back to Luther’s truth that we are simultaneously justified and sinners. I keep on looking at my own life, and at church history, and I realize that when the Gospel talks about transformation, it can’t possibly mean an actual, literal change in this life of a dramatic nature, except in a few instances. It must be primarily eschatological; it must be referring to the fact that we will in fact be changed. The essential thing to make change possible has occurred — Christ died and rose again. (And in this life we will see flashes of that, just like in Jesus’ ministry there were moments when the Kingdom broke in and we see a miracle. And these moments tell us there is something better awaiting for us and God is gracious enough at times to allow a person or a church or a community to experience transformation at some level.) But we can’t get into the habit of thinking that this dramatic change is normal, this side of the Kingdom. What’s normal this side of the Kingdom is falling into sin (in big or small ways), and then appropriating the grace of God and looking forward to the transformation to come.
So…
What are we to make of this whole idea of “life change”?
Is this what the Gospel promises us in Christ, and if so, what’s it all about?
Note from CM: I try to publish this about once a year. The truth is, I need it about once a week, if not more often. Of all that Michael Spencer wrote, this was the piece that convinced me of the genius of Mike’s spiritual insight and his ability to present that in plain-spoken terms. These words grab me by the lapel, shake me, and yell at me to wake up. But they are not all words of conviction, for herein we also see Jesus, companion in our weakness, our resurrection, our life.
* * *
When I Am Weak: Why we must embrace our brokenness and never be good Christians by Michael Spencer, c. 2004
The voice on the other end of the phone told a story that has become so familiar to me, I could have almost finished it from the third sentence. A respected and admired Christian leader, carrying the secret burden of depression, had finally broken under the crushing load of holding it all together. As prayer networks in our area begin to make calls and send e-mails, the same questions are asked again and again. “How could this happen? How could someone who spoke so confidently of God, someone whose life gave such evidence of Jesus’ presence, come to the point of a complete breakdown? How can someone who has the answers for everyone one moment, have no answers for themselves the next?”
Indeed. Why are we, after all that confident talk of “new life,” “new creation,” “the power of God,” “healing,” “wisdom,” “miracles,” “the power of prayer,” …why are we so weak? Why do so many “good Christian people,” turn out to be just like everyone else? Divorced. Depressed. Broken. Messed up. Full of pain and secrets. Addicted, needy and phony. I thought we were different.
It’s remarkable, considering the tone of so many Christian sermons and messages, that any church has honest people show up at all. I can’t imagine that any religion in the history of humanity has made as many clearly false claims and promises as evangelical Christians in their quest to say that Jesus makes us better people right now. With their constant promises of joy, power, contentment, healing, prosperity, purpose, better relationships, successful parenting and freedom from every kind of oppression and affliction, I wonder why more Christians aren’t either being sued by the rest of humanity for lying or hauled off to a psych ward to be examined for serious delusions.
Evangelicals love a testimony of how screwed up I USED to be. They aren’t interested in how screwed up I am NOW. But the fact is, that we are screwed up. Then. Now. All the time in between and, it’s a safe bet to assume, the rest of the time we’re alive. But we will pay $400 to go hear a “Bible teacher” tell us how we are only a few verses, prayers and cds away from being a lot better. And we will set quietly, or applaud loudly, when the story is retold. I’m really better now. I’m a good Christian. I’m not a mess anymore. I’m different from other people.
Please. Call this off. It’s making me sick. I mean that. It’s affecting me. I’m seeing, in my life and the lives of others, a commitment to lying about our condition that is absolutely pathological. Evangelicals called Bill Clinton a big-time liar about sex? Come on. How many nodding “good Christians” have so much garbage sitting in the middle of their lives that the odor makes it impossible to breathe without gagging? How many of us are addicted to food, porn and shopping? How many of us are depressed, angry, unforgiving and just plain mean? How many of us are a walking, talking course on basic hypocrisy, because we just can’t look at ourselves in the mirror and admit what we a collection of brokenness we’ve become WHILE we called ourselves “good Christians” who want to “witness” to others. I’m choking just writing this.
You people with your Bibles. Look something up for me? Isn’t almost everyone in that book screwed up? I mean, don’t the screwed up people- like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Hosea- outnumber the “good Christians” by about ten to one? And isn’t it true that the more we get to look at a Biblical character close up, the more likely it will be that we’ll see a whole nasty collection of things that Christians say they no longer have to deal with because, praise God! I’m fixed? Not just a few temper tantrums or ordinary lies, but stuff like violence. Sex addictions. Abuse. Racism. Depression. It’s all there, yet we still flop our Bibles open on the pulpit and talk about “Ten Ways To Have Joy That Never Goes Away!” Where is the laugh track?
What was that I heard? “Well….we’re getting better. That’s sanctification. I’ve been delivered!” I suppose some of us are getting better. For instance, my temper is better than it used to be. Of course, the reason my temper is better, is that in the process of cleaning up the mess I’ve made of my family with my temper, I’ve discovered about twenty other major character flaws that were growing, unchecked, in my personality. I’ve inventoried the havoc I’ve caused in this short life of mine, and it turns out “temper problem” is way too simple to describe the mess that is me. Sanctification? Yes, I no longer have the arrogant ignorance to believe that I’m always right about everything, and I’m too embarrassed by the general chaos of my life to mount an angry fit every time something doesn’t go my way. Getting better? Quite true. I’m getting better at knowing what a wretched wreck I really amount to, and it’s shut me up and sat me down.
Some things have happened in my personal world recently that require reflection and reconsideration of the way ahead. I won’t share details at this point, except to say that a fog has descended, obscuring the road that stretches before me.
I’ve learned enough by now to know that it might be wise to pull over at the nearest rest stop, get a cup of coffee, check the weather, talk to some other drivers who have negotiated the geography that lies ahead, and figure out if it is wise to proceed apace, stop until the conditions are more friendly, or find another route.
So I’m pulling off the road for a bit. I will be setting aside some usual commitments for about a month or so. My wife and I will take a weekend to get away to think, talk, and pray together. I would like to schedule a personal retreat at Gethsemani or some other place conducive to solitude and silence. I’m compiling a list of people in my mind that I may or may not talk to in order to get other perspectives.
And, I will try to tailor my reading during these days so that I can access the words of some authorial mentors who can be trusted to share the wisdom of fellow travelers. I’m starting with two books that will be my constant companions over the next few weeks.
One is part of a series of posthumous books that were composed using Henri Nouwen’s coursework, journals, and unpublished writings in order to put together a picture of his teachings on the spiritual life. (I reviewed the volume on spiritual direction here.) The final book in the set, the one I’ll be taking up now, is called, Discernment: Reading the Signs of Daily Life.
The foreword by Robert A. Jonas notes an important distinction Nouwen kept:
Henri emphasized that Christian discernment is not the same as decision making. Reaching a decision can be straightforward: we consider our goals and options; maybe we list the pros and cons of each possible choice; and then we choose the action that meets our goal most effectively. Discernment, on the other hand, is about listening and responding to that place within us where our deepest desires align with God’s desire. As discerning people, we sift through our impulses, motives, and options to discover which ones lead us closer to divine love and compassion for ourselves and other people and which ones lead us further away.
The situations I face in my life (and you in yours) will, of course, require decision making. That’s all well and fine. However, the older I get, the more I see the difference Nouwen urges us to recognize. As described, making a decision involves choosing a course of action; answering the question, “What shall I do?” Discernment may include that, but goes deeper than making a determination about what I should do to ask, “Who shall I be?”
Before God, for myself, and for others — “Who shall I be?”
Rohr observes that many of us have been unaware that there is a further journey to be made in the second half of life, should God grant us the years. Furthermore, many of us do not realize that it is a different journey than we make in the first half. Most of our culture is preoccupied with what happens in our earlier days, when: “We are all trying to find what the Greek philosopher Archimedes called a ‘lever and a place to stand’ so that we can move the world just a little bit.”
There is, however, a “further journey,” as Richard Rohr calls it. Like Nouwen, he believes it is more about “being” (or “becoming”) than “doing,” though he likewise stresses our active participation in the process. This further journey involves becoming mature, bringing our True Selves to full flower.
Whether we find our True Self depends in large part on the moments of time we are each allotted, and the moments of freedom that we each receive and choose during that time. Life is indeed “momentous,” created by accumulated moments in which the deeper “I” is slowly revealed if we are ready to see it. Holding our inner blueprint, which is a good description of our soul, and returning it humbly to the world and to God by love and service is indeed of ultimate concern. Each thing and every person must act out its nature fully, at whatever cost. It is our life’s purpose, and the deepest meaning of “natural law.” We are here to give back fully and freely what was first given to us—but now writ personally—by us! It is probably the most courageous and free act we will ever perform—and it takes both halves of our life to do it fully. The first half of life is discovering the script, and the second half is actually writing it and owning it.
Before God, for myself, and for others — “To act out my nature fully, at whatever cost.”
* * *
Excuse me while I pull over and stop for a little while. We should think about the next part of this journey before we proceed.
John Grisham wrote a book called Skipping Christmas, which was later made into the movie, Christmas with the Kranks. It tells the tale of a couple, Luther and Nora Krank, who decided to go against the established traditions of their suburban community and forgo celebrating the Christmas holiday. The decision got them into all kinds of trouble with their neighbors and friends. No amount of explaining could avail. They were members of the community and that meant decorating their house per neighborhood protocol, supporting the local merchants, and holding their annual party just like they did every year. No room for nonconformists.
You can’t be part of this community and skip Christmas. It just isn’t done.
Donald Miller received a similar response recently when he wrote two posts about skipping church.
I used to feel guilty about this but to be honest, I experience an intimacy with God I consider strong and healthy.
It’s just that I don’t experience that intimacy in a traditional worship service. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of sermons I actually remember. So to be brutally honest, I don’t learn much about God hearing a sermon and I don’t connect with him by singing songs to him. So, like most men, a traditional church service can be somewhat long and difficult to get through.
He went on to talk about how people have different learning styles, different ways they engage best with the world around them. He thinks himself to be a kinesthetic learner: he learns best by doing.
How do I find intimacy with God if not through a traditional church model?
The answer came to me recently and it was a freeing revelation. I connect with God by working. I literally feel an intimacy with God when I build my company. I know it sounds crazy, but I believe God gave me my mission and my team and I feel closest to him when I’ve got my hand on the plow. It’s thrilling and I couldn’t be more grateful he’s given me an outlet through which I can both serve and connect with him.
Miller also said, “the church is all around us, not to be confined by a specific tribe,” and thus doing his work is a way of being part of the church even though he doesn’t see the need to gather with a congregation in traditional ways.
Not so fast, Mr. Krank.
Miller received significant backlash to his post and felt it necessary to do a follow up piece. Noting that “most of the influential Christian leaders I know (who are not pastors) do not attend church,” he suggested that “perhaps it’s something we should talk about in an open, safe environment.”
In response to his critics, he made several points, some of which I will summarize here in bullet points:
I have left evangelicalism. My understanding of God and church have evolved and I think people can worship God just as well with family or friends, at work or in daily life.
It is not my duty to suffer through services I don’t enjoy when I can find pleasure in worshiping God in other ways.
I don’t need a home church to have an impact for God in the world. Many of the most effective people serving God in the world don’t attend church regularly. The church is bigger than that.
Not going to church doesn’t leave me bereft of community. Church is a created community, and I can create or join a rich, meaningful community anywhere.
Just because I don’t belong to a church doesn’t mean I’m against the church; there’s no need for that kind of tribal thinking.
Your church doesn’t look like the church in the book of Acts, either. God allows us to be creative in forming our faith communities, so we shouldn’t go throwing the word “biblical” around to keep people inside a certain form.
Jesus is at work both within and outside our churches, doing great things.
If the church is ever going to evolve, it will come from those outside the system who are free from traditional models and limitations, who try new things and challenge the status quo.
Miller ends by saying: “The final issue for me is control. I can’t control you, you can’t control me, and none of us are going to control Jesus. He’s going to do what He wants, and what He wants is to love the world through us, both inside and outside the church.”
I am not going to call Donald Miller a Krank today. I’m actually glad he wrote these words, because I think ecclesiology is a primary issue for the Church today, and especially for evangelicals here in the U.S. We need to talk about this!
I have both critique and commendation for what Miller says in these articles. His words are both problematic and promising.
The Gallup organization has released its latest report of American religiosity. 41 percent of Americans indicated that they are “very religious,” 29 percent were classified as nonreligious, and another 29 percent fell somewhere in-between. Each state was also rated, with Mississippi found to have the most “very religious” people (61%) and Vermont the fewest. (22%). You can check out where your state rates in the Biblethumpers vs. pagans scale here. Or you can just view the nice map from the Atlantic:
Demon possession, levitation, unnatural swarms of flies, skeptical state officials, children walking up walls, oozing substances, spirit silhouettes, an exorcism: Gary (Indiana) police Capt. Charles Austin said it was the strangest story he had ever heard. But after studying the documents and interviewing the family and witnesses, the 36 year veteran said simply, “I am a believer.” The Indianapolis Star (a Pulitzer-prize winning paper) produced a 6,000 word articleafter reviewing 800 pages of official documents (many of which are hyperlinked to the article). The official intake reportdocuments that both the psych counselor and DCS [Department of Child Services] worker saw one of Latoya Ammons’s three children “walk up the wall as if he was walking on the floor and did a flip over the grandmother.” It also reports that medical staff corroborated a report of one of the children being thrown into a wall by an invisible force.
Should Christians view Muslims as allies in our culture? First Things make a good casefor it. Your thoughts?
In Buffalo, many Roman Catholics are practicing a Mass Mob. Like a Flash Mob, participants should up en masse, but in this case their only goal is to fill a struggling church.
Professor Bengtson was curious: Why do some young people adopt their families’ religious views while others strike out on their own? Curious enough that he spent four decades on the question, studying 350 families. His research produced over 200 articles, but he did not publish a summary till now. His conclusionsare very interesting. But what have you experienced? Why do children stay in the faith or wander away?
Well this is good news: The abortion ratein the United States has dropped to its lowest point since Roe V. Wade (1973), and is just barely above the rate before Roe. The authors of the study suggest this may be due to better birth control, but they admit this is speculation. Click on the picture at right to see the trend.
Culture war in Europe: In France, 0ver 100,000 conservative French marched through Paris and Lyon on Sunday accusing the government of “family-phobia” for legalizing gay marriage (and other policies). Spain is debating a new abortion bill. In London, it is the battle of the posters. Gay rights group Stonewall, published some downtown which said, “Some people are gay. Get over it!” A Christian charity group responded with posters reading “Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!” Guess which posters were deemed illegal.
And increasing anti-Semitism in Europe: In Italy, Pigs’ Heads were sent to a Synagogue and the Israeli Embassy before Holocaust Remembrance Day. In France, anti-government protests in Paris denigrated into shouts of “Jews you flaws, France is not yours” “Jews, We don’t want you”, “Jews, out of France”, all while many made Nazi salutes. Wow.
The message was not surprising, perhaps, but the messenger was. Responding to Vatican queries, the Bishops of Germany issued an incredibly blunt assessmentof the gap between the churches teachings on sexuality and what Catholics there actually thought and did. “The Church’s statements on premarital sexual relations, homosexuality, on those divorced and remarried, and on birth control, by contrast, are virtually never accepted, or are expressly rejected in the vast majority of cases,” it said. Ouch. It goes on. “Almost all couples who wish to marry in church have already been living together.” Less than three percent of Catholic couples use the Natural Family Planning of birth control (opting for condoms or the pill instead). Divorced and remarried couples have “become a normal part of pastoral reality in Germany.” And they suggest that the Church should move away from “prohibition ethics” and stress “advisory ethics” instead.
Et Tu, Menno? A regional Mennonite body has licensed their first lesbian Pastor.
Your tax dollars at work: Rutgers students can now take a class called Politicizing Beyoncé. The official class description: “We will attempt to position Beyoncé as a progressive, feminist, and even queer figure through close examination of her music alongside readings on political issues, both contemporary and historical.” The mind boggles; a respected university is going to try to exegete this???
I think I need a barber None of these niggars can fade me Im so good with this, I remind you im so hood with this
Boy im just playing, come here baby Hope you still like me, niggar pay me My persuasion can build a nation Endless power, our love we can devour You’ll do anything for me.
The same departmentalso lists these other gems (only one of which I made up):
Representation and Pornography — “This course will examine how the body has been represented in art and visual culture, as well as in pornography and consider the range of ways the nude body and pornography exist in contemporary art.”
Gender, Race, and Performance During the Harlem Renaissance— “This multidisciplinary course analyzes the fabled cultural awakening among African Americans during the 1920s and 1930s. It focuses on the performance of gender and race identity in literature, popular culture, and the visual arts.”
Gender and Bollywood — “This course examines through a feminist lens some of these films and the larger political, social and cultural issues they raise, including arranged marriages, sex, prostitution, single motherhood, women in the workplace, and gender and cultural identity. Primary course material consists of Bollywood films, which we will be watching throughout the course.”
Gender & Consumption — “Topics to be discussed might include: sex work, pornography, tourism, shopping addiction, hoarding, advertising, the fashion industry, celebrity culture, corporatized activism, the pharmaceutical industry, the drug trade, health, the bioeconomy, et cetera.”
Gender in Calvin and Hobbes— “This course examines American feminist issues in popular culture through looking at how the sexually repressed Calvin relates to his mother, his teacher, and Susie Derkins.”
Politics, Food, and Environment — “This course will address questions of the intersection of gender, food, and environmental politics from several different perspectives. We’ll be talking about ecofeminism, the sexual politics of meat production, [editor’s note: WHAT?] environmental activism, and maybe The Hunger Games.”
Homosexuality and Visual Culture — “How has history been changed by queer artists? This course will introduce you to the central role of homosexuality and homoeroticism in visual culture in the distant and recent past as well as the present day”
The motto translates to, “Sun of Righteousness, enlighten also the west.” Yes, really.
“If you continue on this destructive path, you will ensure your everlasting disgrace in Jewish history for bringing calamity upon the Jewish people — like Nebuchadnezzar and Titus who destroyed, respectively, the first and second great Temples and the entire Holy City of Jerusalem, and who, by heavenly punishment, brought eventual disaster upon themselves, too.” Who were the Rabbis addressing? One of the leaders of their Muslim neighbors? A group of terrorists? Iran? No, this was addressed to none other than our own Secretary of State, John Kerry. The Rabbis (a couple big names among them) also warned Kerry he was acting like Haman, adding helpfully (in case the Secretary was fuzzy on his Bible stories) “Tellingly, [Haman] and his sons eventually were hung on the very same gallows he had prepared for Mordechai, the Jew.”
A United Nations panel blasted the Vatican for protecting itself rather than victims of sexual abuse and accused the Vatican of “systematically” adopting policies that allowed priests to rape and molest thousands of young people over a span of decades. It added, “the Holy See has consistently placed the preservation of the reputation of the church and the protection of the perpetrators above children’s best interests”. Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Holy See’s permanent observer at the UN in Geneva, said he had been surprised by the findings, which he considered “not up to date” and a distorted depiction that ignored recent progress.
Pope John Paul II wanted his diaries burned; instead, they have now been published. They record the emotions of a man who spent decades constantly questioning whether he was worthy of the role he was called to carry out, and who agonised about whether he was doing enough to serve God.
A Catholic Diocese is taking heat for its decision to fire an unwed teacherbecause she is pregnant. The superintendent said the woman “made a willful decision to violate the terms of her contract,” which requires her to follow Catholic teachings in both her personal and professional life.
Well, this is interesting: What’s your take on why these trends are happening?
Cognitve dissonance alert: Why am I on the same side of an issue as Pat Robertson?
From the “sad, but not surprising department” comes this note that more people read Facebookeach day than read their Bibles. Okay, imonkers, fess up? Is this you? And is this a problem or a non-issue?
One of my favorite actors died this week. The Atlantic argued Phillip Seymour Hoffman was the greatest actor of his generation. He is having a Catholic funeral, and you can read why here.Who gets your vote for the greatest living actor?
Birthdays of the week include: Sir Thomas More (1478), Aaron Burr (1756), Charles Dickens (1812), Charles Lindberg (1902), Ronald Reagan (1911, yes only nine years younger than Lindberg), Eva Braun (1912), Bob Marley (1945) who provides this week’s video:
I had an interesting picture in my facebook feed the other day. I don’t usually repost much, but this one really caught my attention as it represented how I was feeling that day.
On particularly rough days, when I’m sure that I can’t possibly endure, I like to remind myself that my track record for getting through bad days so far is 100% and that’s pretty good.
Nice thought, right?
It reminded me of what I had read just the previous day from James 5:11:
As you know, we count as blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.
So what happened to Job? The Sunday School version has God taking everything away, but blessing Job with even more than he had at the beginning. This version tends to gloss over the 40 chapters of suffering that occurs between the taking away and the restoring.
Ever since I reposted the facebook meme I have had second thoughts.
Why is it so bad to say “life sucks”, full stop. Job “loathes” his life and wishes he had never been born. He continues this theme for most of 40 chapters. In other scripture, David cries “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me!” Why are we so afraid of lament? Why do feel the need to put on masks when we go to church?
And what about Job’s kids? The book of Job portrays them as partiers. After every birthday party Job presents a sacrifice, just in case his children got carried away. We get the sense that the book portrays them as less than ideal so that it can be shown that what he ended up with was better than what he started with. Even so, his kids couldn’t say that their “track record for getting through bad days was 100%.”
That is the second problem that I have with the facebook post. Some people don’t make it. People die, commit suicide, are incapacitated by injury and disease, or are completely overwhelmed by circumstances. Maybe I am overthinking this, but a post that says it’s “pretty good” that I made it through the day could come across as pretty insensitive to those who are going through significant struggle or loss.
I have a friend who lost his job, was then divorced by his wife, and his kids no longer want to talk to him. Should I go and give him a friendly slap on the back and say, “Isn’t it good that you are making through the day?” Or what about the cashier from the variety store behind my house who was shot in a robbery and left as a quadriplegic? How would my post make him feel? Or those who a physically or sexuality abused on a daily basis?
Sometimes life is tougher than we can manage. When I see others in that place I need to learn to sit and listen, and not be so quick with the clichés. I also have to be willing to take off my own mask and admit to others when I am having a miserable day, or week, or month, or year. For some “life is tough, and then you die.” I find it really hard to call that “good.”
What do you think? Am I overreacting here? Or is there a need for us to be more considerate of those who are having difficult times? Do we need to recognize and practice lament in our own lives?
Note from CM: From where I sit, the best response I’ve read to the Ham vs. Nye debate earlier this week was at Biologos: Ham on Nye: Our Take. Various BioLogos contributors give their reflections, but the one I appreciate most is that of OT scholar John Walton. I appreciate his perspective because for me, like him, the scientific issues involved are secondary to the biblical ones. My primary objection to Young Earth Creationism is its misreading of scripture, and Walton addresses that cogently.
Here’s what he had to say:
In general I appreciated the cordial and respectful tone that both debaters evidenced. Most of the debate was about scientific evidence, which I am not the one to address. The only comment that I want to make in that regard is that it was evident that Ken Ham believed that all evolutionists were naturalists—an identification that those associated with BioLogos would strongly contest.
But both speakers also showed assumptions about the Bible that provide opportunity for analysis. Bill Nye repeatedly returned to the idea that the Bible was a book translated over and over again over thousands of years. In his opinion this results in a product that could be no more trusted than the end result in the game of telephone. In this opinion he shows his lack of clear understanding of the whole process of the transmission of texts and the textual basis for today’s translations. The point he should have been making is that any translation is an interpretation. That is the point on which to contest Ken Ham’s “natural” readings of Scripture. We cannot base the details of our interpretations on translated (and therefore interpreted) text. We have to interact with a Hebrew text, not an English one. Nye also tried to drive a wedge between Old Testament and New Testament—a non-productive direction. The point he was trying to get at, but never fully exploited was how dependent Ham’s position was on interpretation.
I commend Ken Ham’s frequent assertion of the gospel message. His testimony to his faith was admirable and of course, I agree with it. I also share his beliefs about the nature of the Bible, but I do not share his interpretation of the Bible on numerous key points. From the opening remarks Ham proclaimed that his position was based on the biblical account of origins. But he is intent on reading that account as if it were addressing science (he truly believes it is). I counter by saying that we cannot have a confident understanding of what the Bible claims until we read it as an ancient document. I believe as he does that the Bible was given by God, but it was given through human instruments into an ancient culture and language. We can only encounter the Bible’s claims by taking account of that context.
One place where this distinction was obvious was that Ham tried to make the statement in Genesis that God created each animal “after its kind” as a technical statement that matched our modern scientific categories. We cannot assume that the same categories were used in the ancient world as are used today (genus, family, species, etc.). Such anachronism does not take the Bible seriously as what it “naturally” says. In the Bible this only means that when a grain of wheat drops, a grain of wheat grows (not a flower); when a horse gives birth, it gives birth to a horse, not a coyote.
The fact is that Ken Ham rejects scientific findings because he believes the Bible offers claims that contradict science. He believes that he can add up the genealogies to arrive at the need for a young earth. He never stops to ask whether it is “natural” to read ancient genealogies in that way. In the ancient world genealogies serve a very different function than they do today, and numbers may well have rhetorical rather than strictly numerical value. He believes that there could be no death before the fall because he has interpreted the word “good” as if it meant “perfect.” That is not what the Hebrew term means. Furthermore, if there was no death before the fall, people would have little use for a tree of life. What is a “natural” interpretation—our sense of what it means or the sense that an ancient reader would have had? Ham actually made the statement that we have to read the Bible “according to the type of literature” that it is. Yet it was clear that he has done no research on ancient genres and how parts of the Bible should be identified by the standards of ancient genres (after all, our genre categories are bound to carry some anachronism and therefore cannot be applied directly). Reading the Bible “naturally” cannot be approached as casually as Ham suggests.
When Ham was asked what it would take to change his mind, he was lost for words because he said that he could never stop believing in the truth of the Bible. I would echo that sentiment, but it never seemed to occur to him that there might be equally valid interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis, or maybe even ones that could garner stronger support. He stated that no one can prove the age of the earth, but he believes that the Bible tells us the age of the earth. Nevertheless, it is only his highly debatable interpretation of the Bible that tells him the age of the earth. What if the Bible makes no such claim? There are biblical scholars who take the Bible every bit as seriously as he does, who disagree that the Bible makes a claim about the age of the earth.
In the end, then, while Ham kept challenging Nye about whether he was there to see this history that he claimed, Nye should have been challenging Ham about what makes him so certain that the Bible is making the claims that he thinks it is. What appears to Ham as a “natural” reading, is extremely debatable if one attempts to read the text of Genesis as the (God-inspired) ancient document that it is.
For all of you who are regular commenters on Internet Monk: this morning’s postis your Open Forum. I encourage you to continue your discussions there.
This afternoon’s Open Forum is for people who have never or who only rarely make a comment on Internet Monk.
I want to encourage you newbies to speak up and let us know you’re there.
Maybe you have a comment but haven’t yet wanted to wade in to the rough-and-tumble comment threads we sometimes have here.
Maybe you are a new reader and have thoughts or questions about the site.
Maybe you just like reading and don’t care to comment on a regular basis.
Whatever your situation, I’d like to hear from some folks this afternoon who are not among “the usual suspects” we round up daily here at Internet Monk. Every once in awhile I just like to meet some new folks, that’s all.
Yesterday there was a list posted of 100 fantastic Canadian Christian women leaders. It was posted in response to a list of 101 [Mostly American] Christian Women speakers. The authors of both lists recognized their own limitations in creating these lists, and both agree that there are many other names that should have been included. 
According to him, a transformed Christian …
.
, which was later made into the movie, 
. It tells the tale of a couple, Luther and Nora Krank, who decided to go against the established traditions of their suburban community and forgo celebrating the Christmas holiday. The decision got them into all kinds of trouble with their neighbors and friends. No amount of explaining could avail. They were members of the community and that meant decorating their house per neighborhood protocol, supporting the local merchants, and holding their annual party just like they did every year. No room for nonconformists.
The Internet Monk Archives 