« January 2005 | Main | March 2005 »
February 28, 2005
Speaking of movies...Mel Gibson's next movie?
Hugh Hewitt is the first source that I have seen on this story.
Mel Gibson's new movie about Fatima
Posted by rhett at 06:11 PM | Comments (0)
Oprah and Jay Leno....searching for what is already there.
This is just a quick sidenote to something I witnessed on Friday night. I was watching Jay Leno interview Oprah Winfrey on the Friday night show, and they were talking about O Magazine. Jay was intrigued by an article in the latest issue on tantric sex, and wanted to know more from Oprah. This is not the time and place to get into what tantric sex is. That is for a different blog!
But what was fascinating to me, since we are coming to the end of our four week series on sex, was what both Jay Leno and Oprah Winfrey were saying on this issue. For Oprah, tantric sex provides an opportunity for two people to connect spiritually through sexual intercourse. And she goes on to explain how in tantric sex, two people become one. And as she explained this, like someone who has a closely guarded, and secret information, the audience ooohh'd and aaahh'd because of this concept. Two people becoming one in the act of sexual union. That is not new.
We are taught from the very beginning of the Bible in Genesis 1-2, that when a man and woman come together in the sexual act, their two fleshes become one. It is something that God has ordained. This is not new. But to the rest of the world, this is some new and fascinating finding that will enlighten and bring more pleasure to their sexual experience.
The renowned French sociologist and theologian Jacques Ellul saw our modern fascination with sex as a breakdown in intimacy in society. That when there is a breakdown in intimacy, and it is severed from relationship, all there is, is technique. Hence the abundance of books and videos and manuals on sex. Oprah and Jay's fascination with tantric sex is really an attempt to capture by technique, what only God has ordained. It is interesting that someone like Oprah has been dating the same guy for over 20 years, but has never entered into a marriage relationship. Maybe her fascination with this topic is her attempt to capture what she has been unable to experience in a committed, mongamous, marriage relationship.
I just find it fascinating when those in our culture believe they have found the way to something that has always been.
Posted by rhett at 01:10 PM | Comments (0)
Hollywood, Movies, and a Culture of Life vs. Death
Well, if you have been following some of the comments on this post the last couple of days you would realize what a difficult and interesting topic this issue is. That is why I am really interested in pursuing it this week.
Let me clairfy something from the outset. I do not believe that a movie has to be a blockbuster, or joyous, or present a good message for it to be worth watching. There are amazing movies out there that reveal a side of us that we hardly know is there at times. Not all movies point to something full of hope or transcendent. And not all movies glorify the message that is in the movie.
Some movie names have been thrown around the last couple of days: Movies like Fight Club, American Beauty, Cider House Rules, etc. All these deal with very difficult, and not very redeeming subjects.
I happen to work in a church where the majority of the people work in the entertainment industry, so movies and the LA, and Hollywood culture is very much a part of our ministry.
I am of the belief though, that a good movie, no matter how dark or depressing the theme is, must have some message of redemption in it, no matter how small, or big. Whether it's a flower that is blooming in a desolate batttlefield, showing the redemptive act of life.
This is an interesting and controversial subject because many questions are soon raised, and different issues looked at when one is operating out of a Christian mindset as opposed to others. One of my favorite professors at Fuller Theological Seminary is Robert Johnston, who writes a lot on the theology of movies. His books are really worth reading.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I love to read existential philosophy and literature, like those of Camus, Satre, Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky, Heidegger, etc. And when reading these authors it is very easy to see what I mean by those who are able to look at the darker side of life, yet reveal a side of redemption that we often miss. Dostoyevsky and Kierkegaard are highly melanchology and depressing at times, but so redemptive. Dostoyevsky can write about a character who is about as dark a figure as one can imagine, but is able to bring about a scene of redemption in an interaction with a prostitute (Notes from the Underground). While people like Camus write about death and distraught figures, and that is the end. No hope for life, no hope for redemption. Of course, this is a somewhat generalization, but true enough.
I would like to see Hollywood bring about messages and themes of redemption in their films. But like I said, maybe that is asking too much. Or maybe we need to look closer. My professor loved the film Monster's Ball, and the redemptive message he saw in the film. But that movie would have been banned in most Christian circles as too sexually graphic. So what is the balance? And what makes a good film?
I would like to hear from you. What makes a good film? Do films need to have some redeeming message in them, even in the midst of the darkness?
Cameron at Summa Aesthetica has been posting on this issue as of late, and he has some good things to say.
Posted by rhett at 12:37 PM | Comments (0)
February 27, 2005
Why the Oscars this year will receive the lowest ratings ever....and why they promote a culture of death, rather than life.....
It seems like all I have been hearing the last few days is talk about "a culture of death" versus "a culture of life." Why this topic? Well, several reasons.
1) As the Oscars approach it is so evident by the movies that are being hailed as Oscar worthy seem to only promote "a culture of death." Is that true? Many sociologists and culture critics see this as true. For example: Let's run down a list of some of the movies real fast.
Ray: A movie about the musician Ray Charles, where most of the movie tends to focus on his heroin problem, as well as his adulteress affairs. What the movie fails to really show you is the real devastating affects his drug use and his promiscuity had on his life.
Million Dollar Baby: A movie the promotes euthenasia. If you think it doesn't, then you aren't giving Hollywood enough credit.
Sideways: A movie that glorifies sexuality, and promiscuity at that.
Maria Full of Grace: A movie that focuses on a woman who has to swallow drugs, and traffic them in order to raise her family.
The Aviator: Wow! Does anyone not think Howard Hughes life was a complete mess? The Aviator doesn't show you that.
Being Julia: About aboritonist Vera Drake.
Should I go on more.......And before you point out that the Passion of the Christ was about death, let me say that the death in that movie, versus the other movies, are fundamentally different. Christ's death brings about life. While the death that Hollywood promotes and glorifies brings about a nihilistic nothingness, more along the lines of something Albert Camus would have written.
2) What about the suicidal death of literary icon, Hunter S. Thompson last week. His story is getting more and more unusual, as the culture around us is glorifying his suicide by shooting (while on the phone with his wife), because he seemed to be a man in control, wanting to go out as he wanted. This is so in opposition of what we are seeing in the struggle of Pope John Paul II, as he struggles to bring dignity to life. Just read his 1995 encyclical, and one would see how we are in a struggle of living in a culture of life vs. death.
This is something I want to focus on more this next week. I intentionally did not cite sources in this article, as I wanted to just give an overview. But stay tuned this next week as I begin to unpack this topic more and more.
Whether its the current euthenasia of children (up to age 12) in the Netherlands; or whether its the glorifying of Hollywood on their big night, the Oscars, we live and admire a culture that totally goes against the teachings of Christ.
"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full" (John 10:10)
Check out Ben Stein's thoughts on why Hollywood is out of touch.
Does anyone find it interesting that Hollywood's most coveted and prized possession is a golden statue, that is basically worthless, but is worshipped by everyone? "Aaron answered them, 'Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.' So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, 'These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.'" (Exodus 32:2-4)......Hmmmmmmmmm
Posted by rhett at 01:14 PM | Comments (0)
Sex Part 3/Sex, Christianity and Culture: Sinful Distortion
"Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, ‘The two will become one flesh.’ But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins people commit are outside their bodies, but those who sin sexually sin against their own bodies. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies." (I Corinthians 6:15-20)
Sexual sin can be one of the most devastating sins in our lives. According to the Apostle Paul, unlike other sin, sexual sin is against our own bodies. It affects our lives in ways that we did not or could not expect, and often it is not until years later, with the ability of hindsight, do we finally see what our sexual transgressions have caused us. I came across an interesting article by theologian J.I. Packer, where he discusses the issue of sin, answering the question, Are All Sins Equal. J.I. Packer says they are not, and I tend to agree with him, especially in the area of sexual sin. Equal in the sense that all sin is sin, and all sin is a violation of our relationship with Jesus Christ (Romans 1:25). But not all sin carries with it the same consequences, and sexual sin can carry some unique and devastating consequences that one would not expect.
Our desire to connect sexually with someone is often linked to our desire to want to feel intimacy with another human being, to feel like we belong to someone, and to feel like we have given ourselves completely to another person. For Sigmund Freud, he saw this urge as our desire to connect with a parent. For Carl Jung, he saw this urge as our desire to connect with another person of the opposite sex. And for those that are Christian, this urge is often linked to our desire to connect with God. The famous theologian and writer G. K. Chesterton said that "Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God." The problem with this desire, is not the desire itself, as we talked about a few weeks ago when we looked at the Creation story in Genesis 1-2. But the problem arises when our sexual desires are misdirected and stray from the intention and design of God, which is a committed, monogamous, marriage relationship between a man and a woman.
When it comes to sexual sin in our lives, I think that most of us live under the assumption that we are in complete control, and that if we are in control we have the ability to "dabble" and "play with fire" just a little bit. We lie to ourselves believing that we are able to not only control the circumstances, but that we can pull away or get out of the situation whenever we want. But Scripture tends to paint a different picture of this reality. "Can a man scoop fire into his lap without his clothes being burned? Can a man walk on hot coals without his feet being scorched?" (Proverbs 6:27-28) The obvious answer is no.
So when we lack the patience, and trust, and faith to wait out and to experience the sexual relationship in marriage that God has intended for us, we quickly veer off path. "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen." (Romans 1:24-25) Our "sinful distortion" of the sexual relationship that God had planned for us can take many different forms, but there are a few that I really believe are not only most prevalent, but some of the most disastrous for us. These are not only distortions that manifest themselves in secular, non-Christian settings, but in the Christian community as a whole, and I have personally witnessed the devastation of them in our own community. What are these two things? Pornography and "Hooking-up" (or "FWB: Friends with Benefits", or "NiCMO: Non-Committed Make Out"). --See some of the postings in the blogs below for info. on this issue--
Pornography:
From the Greek word pornia, meaning any type of sexual immorality (I Corinthians 6:18). It also refers to the type of apostasy that characterized the violation of God’s relationship with His people in a marriage relationship (Hosea 2:16-23). So any type of sexual immorality, or any rejection of our relationship with God, where He is seen as the groom, and we are the bride, is a form of pornia. Pornography is a serious issue leaving disastrous results in its wake. In a survey of 15,000 pastors at Promise Keepers, 65% of the pastors said they struggled with pornography every week. And if you think it's not a cash-cow, did you know that the revenue from pornography in the United States alone takes in more money than all major sports combined. It’s also as addictive as any drug. In research released earlier this year, the Senate of the United States met to discuss the devastating affects of pornography and how it mirrors addiction to crack cocaine and heroin. Psychologist and writer Dan Allender said that "Pornography requires no risk. It doesn't require failure. It becomes your god. Why you would have a magazine become a God? Many Christians stop at saying it's wrong, rather than asking why we would be drawn to something that's not only a violation of ourselves but of somebody else."
I think this is both an issue for men and women. It is a case where both can help each other out. It is well known that men struggle more with pornography than women, but it also appears that pornography is on the rise with women. According to a March 2004 article by the Journal of the American Family Association, 1 in 6 women struggle with pornography. One of the reasons that I believe that pornography is on the rise, is because it has also become a more desensitized medium. People now hardly regard pornography as pornography. Playboy is now seen as a career opportunity for some women, while most people joke around the water cooler about the latest Paris Hilton video. And what about all the other magazines from Maxim to Stuff to HM?
I believe that Christian men need to do a better job of guarding their hearts (Proverbs 4:23), while not letting Satan get a foothold into their lives. Most people do not begin by looking at what they would consider pornography, rather it begins with a young boy looking at the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue, to moving on to Maxim, and other magazines, to eventually something that is more hardcore. With pornography as with drugs, enough is never enough. One must continue to get a bigger and bigger high, and they must continue to search until they find it. I also believe that women can do the job of helping guys protect their hearts and minds. How? Maybe by being more self-conscious about how they dress. Is it modest? Does it cause a guy to stumble? Or, how about helping a guy avoid certain temptations that you might know he would be struggling with? Maybe by avoiding certain movies that might tempt him, or by helping him avoid environments that might lead him to struggle. When it comes to pornography I believe that one of the most important agents in helping a person protect themselves from and fight pornography is other people. A group of committed accountability partners is crucial to one’s health in this area.
Hooking-Up:
This is one of those subject that everyone, or most everyone knows what I’m talking about, but hardly anyone knows how to properly define it. If you have been reading the last few days, I have been posting articles on this very issue. It is a very vague and ambiguous venture, which could mean anything from kissing to having sex. Hooking-up is a non-committed sexual experience in which each individual lacks not only the respect for themselves, but for each other. If I am sounding vague about this issue, well that's because it is a very vague and ambiguos act, that psychologists, pastors and others are now just beginning to really wrestle with as they are now seeing the affects of this behavior in the lives of other people. In 2001, American Values.org published a report titled Hooking Up, Hanging Out, And Hoping For Mr. Rigth: College Women on Mating and Dating Today. Even the secular USA Today gets the deadly affects this issue can have on one's soul. In that article the author makes the astute comment that "Hookups are defined by alcohol, physical attraction and a lack of expectations in the morning." Wow! Alcohol is a whole other issue that I must write about soon. Alcohol is most often used as "social lubricant" to allow one to go through with actions that they might not normally do if they were not under the influence. Hooking up also goes by the name "friends with benefits" or NiCMO (non-committed make out), and it is having devastating affects on people’s lives. It is an issue that more and more psychologists are studying and researching because so little is known about its long term affects. But the long term affects don’t look good. And long term affects or foresight on the part of most people is drastically lacking. If you are thinking about getting married one day, or you want to be someone who knows how to be in a relationship, this quote should be enough to cause you to re-think your behavior.
"Indeed, if there's any learning at all, it's "a negative mudslide," leading to incompetence in intimacy, says Seattle psychologist and adolescence researcher Laura Kastner. Like most professionals, she has nothing good to say about the teen trend toward casual sex."If you're having casual sex at 16, you don't have the confidence to move on to dating at 18 because you don't know how," she says. "At 20, you feel even more awkward so you avoid dating even more. At 22, you're like the client I saw last Friday. She knows how to hang in bars, flirt, and go home with a hook-up. She doesn't know how to spend time with a person, one on one. That scares her. She feels like a loser, she feels disconnected and empty, and has low self-esteem." (This article was reproduced from a blog below; from a Family magazine on the topic of "friends with benefits")
People who hook-up and participate in this type of interaction often lack the emotional capacity to bond with another human being and to experience the intimacy that God had designed.
When it comes to sin and it’s consequences, sexual sin is more difficult to get a grasp upon because it is so allusive. If I run a red-light, I will get a ticket. If someone hits me I’m going to feel pain. But when we play around with sexual sin we often don’t see it’s immediate consequences because we think we are in control. My pastor Mark Brewer one day got up and demonstrated this by using a piece of tape. He put the piece of tape on the lectern and he slowly pulled it off and put it back, time and time again. Each time the tape was removed, and replaced, that tape lost its ability to bond to the surface as it had originally. This is what happens with sexual sin. The more and more we play around in sexual activity with someone other than our marriage partner we lose our ability to bond to the person we will eventually marry and have sex with. Those are consequences that people did not see or expect.
As I continue to pastor college students and work in a church, I realize more and more how Christians, and those within the church are not immune to the struggles and sins of the world. And in the little experience that I do have as a pastor, I see just how tragically these two areas of sexual sin are impacting and destroying people. These certainly aren’t the only sexual sins that people struggle with, nor are they one’s that you might struggle with, but they are deadly.
Last, I want to close with a Biblical story that I believe best exemplifies this idea that sexual sin is not something that we can control, and that its consequences can have everlasting affects on our lives. The story is found in II Samuel 11:1-12:1, and it's the famous story of David and Bathsheba. In this story, we have a man who in I Samuel 13:14 is referred to as a man after God's own heart. No one else in Scripture is given this description. But in the story of David and Bathsheba, David is depicted as this man who thinks he is in control of his life, in control of his circumstances. This is best seen in the Hebrew, where there is both a beutiful and tragic play on words. The Hebrew word for "send" is used 12 times in Chapter 11. David is this man who "sends" people to do what he wants. He appears as if he is in control of his life, sending people to do the things he asks. But that he is not. And it starts small for David. It begins by him not going out to war, as a king should. Then it progresses to him watching Bathsheeba bathing on a roof. Progressing to him sending for her, so that he may sleep with her. Progressing to her getting pregnant, and sending word to David. To David then trying to cover up his sin by bringing back her husband to sleep with her, but Uriah won't because he is an honorable man in the midst of war. Progressing then to David plotting murder to cover up his sin. And finally, David coldheartedly saying that war devours people and that Uriah is a consequence of that. But in 12:1, we reach the climax of the story. The LORD has had enough. He then sends the prophet Nathan to David to confront him. Tweleve usages of "send" in Chapter 11, and the thirteenth use in 12:1 when the LORD steps in. This word usage will continue as well in very disastrous consequences when David unknowingly sends his daugther Tamar into the room of his son Amnon who has been planning to rape her. David's sin had major consequences, and we sadly see them for the rest of his life and his family falls apart.
Sin cannot be controlled, and it only takes a little slip, or allowance on our part for Satan to get a foothold in our life. David probably did not think that by staying home from war, and watching Bathsheba bathing would bring him to adultery, murder, and the ruin of his family. There are times in our life where we probably do not think that by watching a certain movie, or viewing pornography, or hanging out in a bad environment will lead us to such ruin. But such is the uncontrollable consequences of sin in our life. If we give an inch, it will take a mile. "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each of you is tempted when you are dragged away by your own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death" (James 1:13-15).
So read this story of David and ask yourself the same questions about your own life.
Do I think I am in control of my sin?
Can I dabble a little bit, and think I won't get burned, or consumed?
Will this action lead to possibly something worse?
Is Satan using this little allowance on my part to bring greater ruin?
Is drinking in this environment going to cause me to have bad judgement?
Is hanging out in this environment, whether it be a club, or a bar, or a friend's place, putting me in a place where circumstances might be out of my control?
Do I have enough respect for myself not to hook up with another person?
Do I care about my future, and want to honor God with my body?
Etc., Etc., Etc.
"Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14).
2 Samuel 11
David and Bathsheba
1 In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king's men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.
2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then [a] she went back home. 5 The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, "I am pregnant."
6 So David sent this word to Joab: "Send me Uriah the Hittite." And Joab sent him to David. 7 When Uriah came to him, David asked him how Joab was, how the soldiers were and how the war was going. 8 Then David said to Uriah, "Go down to your house and wash your feet." So Uriah left the palace, and a gift from the king was sent after him. 9 But Uriah slept at the entrance to the palace with all his master's servants and did not go down to his house.
10 When David was told, "Uriah did not go home," he asked him, "Haven't you just come from a distance? Why didn't you go home?"
11 Uriah said to David, "The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and my master Joab and my lord's men are camped in the open fields. How could I go to my house to eat and drink and lie with my wife? As surely as you live, I will not do such a thing!"
12 Then David said to him, "Stay here one more day, and tomorrow I will send you back." So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next. 13 At David's invitation, he ate and drank with him, and David made him drunk. But in the evening Uriah went out to sleep on his mat among his master's servants; he did not go home.
14 In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. 15 In it he wrote, "Put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die."
16 So while Joab had the city under siege, he put Uriah at a place where he knew the strongest defenders were. 17 When the men of the city came out and fought against Joab, some of the men in David's army fell; moreover, Uriah the Hittite died.
18 Joab sent David a full account of the battle. 19 He instructed the messenger: "When you have finished giving the king this account of the battle, 20 the king's anger may flare up, and he may ask you, 'Why did you get so close to the city to fight? Didn't you know they would shoot arrows from the wall? 21 Who killed Abimelech son of Jerub-Besheth [b] ? Didn't a woman throw an upper millstone on him from the wall, so that he died in Thebez? Why did you get so close to the wall?' If he asks you this, then say to him, 'Also, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead.' "
22 The messenger set out, and when he arrived he told David everything Joab had sent him to say. 23 The messenger said to David, "The men overpowered us and came out against us in the open, but we drove them back to the entrance to the city gate. 24 Then the archers shot arrows at your servants from the wall, and some of the king's men died. Moreover, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead."
25 David told the messenger, "Say this to Joab: 'Don't let this upset you; the sword devours one as well as another. Press the attack against the city and destroy it.' Say this to encourage Joab."
26 When Uriah's wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. 27 After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the LORD .
2 Samuel 12
Nathan Rebukes David
1 The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, "There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor.
For more information on these topics, link to the previous blogs below, as well as linking to the articles on the right side of this page under current sermon information.
Sex, Christianity and Culture: Created Goodness, Sinful Distortion and Redeemed Potential
Sex Part 1: Sex, Christianity and Culture
Sex Part 2: Sex, Christianity and Culture: Created Goodness
Posted by rhett at 10:58 AM | Comments (0)
February 26, 2005
thanks Hugh...
Wow, what a surprise it was to wake up this morning and get a call that I was linked at Hugh Hewitt.
That means two things: 1) I can't get a little lazy and let a a few days pass without posting my entries (do I get some grace since I'm in the midst of planning a wedding, and looking for a home, and plenty of other things, with my beautiful and wonderful fiance?) Probably not since the blogs never stop moving. 2) I better start posting more over the weekend.
Hugh, thanks for the link. It has been a huge boost to my ministry to have a blog, as hundreds of students visit it each day, and as it has slowly begin to change and revolutionize the way that not only I transmit information and theology, but I know my church has slowly begun to re-think through some of these things as well.
Stay tuned this weekend for my sermon notes from my talk on Wed. on pornography and the "friends with benefits" disaster--all part of my series on sex, Chrisitianity and Culture---and stay tuned as I post a new entry on the "culture of death" out here in Los Angeles and Hollywood, and how it's begun to manifest itself more blatantly.
Here is Hugh's post below:
Randy Elrod's cabin looks like a wonderful place. And I find it amazing that a rocker is reading my book on ambition, but very happy that he is. These two gents along with Rhett Smith, the college pastor at Bel Air Presbyterian who blogs at The Director's Corner, will be my three blogs of the month for March. A New York Times reporter asked for an interview on Godblogging Thursday --I sent her an e-mail on to my usual suspects, beginning with MarkDRoberts-- and I suspect her query is the first signal that the MSM will quickly figure out how radical the impact of blogs on the Christian community in America will be. These March blogs -of-the-month are three examples --each very different, but each very significant-- of that impact. So are all those listed to your left under "The God Squad." (Hmmm. Note to self: I don't have It Takes a Church and SmartChristian on the blogroll. Since I read both a few times a week, that is an oversight. I was postponing blogroll refurbishing until the site overhaul, but since that is moving slower than the glaciers --you just can't please Lileks and the other design snobs-- I may have to advance that part of the redesign project. But not now. It isn't raining. Time to head out the door.)
Posted by rhett at 11:38 AM | Comments (0)
February 24, 2005
Interesting follow up on technology and the Church
Hugh Hewitt wrote an article today for the online edition of The Weekly Standard titled Fides et Internetum, in which he looks at Pope John Paul II's take on media, both old and new.
This is going to be a very interesting topic to watch and debate as the Church begins to wrestle with both the good and bad of technological advances.
I am hoping that Cameron Jorgenson at Summa Aesthetica is working on a blog entry on this subject. I know that he would have a lot of important things to say on this issue.
Posted by rhett at 04:30 PM | Comments (0)
Notes from last night
I'm currently working on last night's notes, regarding the 3rd part, in a four-part series on Sex, Christianity and Culture.
This was one of those talks where everyone seemed to have a lot of questions afterwards. I am working on getting out resources, statistics, and the outline of last night's message. So check back tomorrow sometime around noon.
In the meantime, click on some of the current links in the right hand column under the sermon topic, or type the word "sex" into the search engine on my blog, and different blogs will come up.
Posted by rhett at 03:53 PM | Comments (0)
February 23, 2005
"Hookups are defined by alcohol, physical attraction and a lack of expectations in the morning."
Sad. I may not agree with her final thesis, but even a secular paper like the USA today gets it...gets how deadly hook-ups can be to one's whole being.
Posted by rhett at 03:46 PM | Comments (0)
February 22, 2005
Hooking-Up! Interesting article to stir up things before Wednesday night's talk on sex...
Wow! As I'm getting ready to preach tomorrow night on the topic of sex (the 3rd in a 4 part series) I ran across this article on Relevant just now. Tomorrow's topic deals with what Christian ethicist, Lewis Smedes called "sinful distortion." In this talk I will be looking at some of the sinful ways that we express our sexuality.
One of the huge issues I am going to talk about tomorrow night is "hooking-up." The cheap and generic term for people getting together sexually, whether it's making out, or going as far as having sex.
If you are a student reading this blog, you know what I'm talking about. If you are a parent reading this blog, then you need to know what I'm talking about. And if you aren't convinced, just watch any episode, of any TV show on the WB. One Tree Hill devotes many of its episodes to this topic alone...of course in their eyes it's a great and healthy thing, promoting sexual freedom. Actually, let me extend that statement. Just watch any tv show on tv from Desperate Housewives, to Seinfeld (they had an episode where they tried to make rules for hooking-up), to any reality tv show. They all promote pretty much this lifestyle of hooking up...of course they make it look wonderful, while not showing the short and long term affects this has on one's life and future relationship and marriage. Like "incompetence in intimacy" as the research in the posting below will talk about.
I think this is not only a big issue in both Christian and secular settings, but Christians sometimes lie to themselves the most when it comes to hooking-up. For most Christians who are waiting, or trying to wait till they are married to have sex, they often view hooking-up as an alternative to having sex. They will justify pushing the boundaries as far as they can go, without actually going all the way. When we as Christians do this, we completely ignore the other psychological, emotional, and spiritual side-effects that we not only knew would be an issue one day, but we think we can control the outcome. I am always reminded of this verse when we think we are able to actually play with fire and sin, and not get burned, "Can a man scoop fire into his lap without his clothes being burned? Can a man walk on hot coals without his feet being scorched?" (Proverbs 6:27-28). Hmmmm. No. In the article belowSeattle psychologist and adolescence researcher, Laura Kastner says this:
"If you're having casual sex at 16, you don't have the confidence to move on to dating at 18 because you don't know how," she says. "At 20, you feel even more awkward so you avoid dating even more. At 22, you're like the client I saw last Friday. She knows how to hang in bars, flirt, and go home with a hook-up. She doesn't know how to spend time with a person, one on one. That scares her. She feels like a loser, she feels disconnected and empty, and has low self-esteem."
Check out the Tuesday column about hooking up on Relevant Magazine
Or read this interesting article on some of the new psychological research in terms of hooking up and how it is affecting people, especially youth. This was given to me by one of the pastor's on staff. He apparently knew after 15 years of campus ministry that this is a huge topic:
'FWB' trend distorts the lessons of sex and loveBy Barbara F. Meltz, Globe Staff | October 21, 2004Not long ago, if a teen was in a long-standing relationship, it was reason to worry. It meant they probably were having sex. These days, it's more likely they're not in a relationship and having sex anyway.Their partner is likely to be a "friend with benefits." That means they hang in the same group and know each other at least casually, but they don't spend hours IM'ing or talking on the phone or even talking at all. They aren't holding hands in the hall or buying each other trinkets, either. In fact, signs of affection are against the rules. It's also a no-no to have feelings about the person or to behave like a couple. If there is sex a second or third time, and more likely they just move on to another partner, that's all it is: serial sex.With FWB or "hooking up" (a term as unspecific and encompassing as "making out" once was), foreplay typically isn't more than, "Do you want to --?" It is not a relationship that grows through emotional sharing, not a connection that teaches perspective or empathy, and not a chance to learn something about yourself or about what you like in a partner so you can make a smarter choice next time.Friend with benefits n, slang, also FWB. A one-time or occasional sexual partner within a subset of peers who agrees to an unspoken set of rules, esp. not having feelings about the partner; keeping feelings to oneself if they arise; not expecting social niceties such as loyalty, monogamy, or conversation. Sometimes interchangeable with hooking up.
Indeed, if there's any learning at all, it's "a negative mudslide," leading to incompetence in intimacy, says Seattle psychologist and adolescence researcher Laura Kastner. Like most professionals, she has nothing good to say about the teen trend toward casual sex."If you're having casual sex at 16, you don't have the confidence to move on to dating at 18 because you don't know how," she says. "At 20, you feel even more awkward so you avoid dating even more. At 22, you're like the client I saw last Friday. She knows how to hang in bars, flirt, and go home with a hook-up. She doesn't know how to spend time with a person, one on one. That scares her. She feels like a loser, she feels disconnected and empty, and has low self-esteem."Even promiscuous college students of the '60s and '70s were better off. In between one-night stands, they tended to have monogamous relationships. Short-lived as those relationships may have been, Kastner says, they were at least practicing the skills that would make an intimate relationship work.Maybe our teens don't need that practice. Maybe they're preparing for a social convention yet to be unveiled that will replace marriage.Unlikely, says psychologist Geraldine K. Piorkowski of the University of Illinois at Chicago: "The skills that come from dating and emotional intimacy aren't just preparation for marriage," she says. "They're key to human happiness. This is one thing Freud had right. Human beings are wired to need closeness and unconditional caring." She is the author of "Too Close for Comfort: Exploring the Risks of Intimacy" (Perseus).
Researchers don't know how prevalent FWB is; it varies from one high school or college campus to another. But they know it's popular and growing. Jane O'Keefe of Wakefield, mother of 12-year-old Meghan, learned of it from the October issue of YM, a magazine for young teens. She picked up the issue thinking she might get a subscription for Meghan. Then she read the article on FWB headlined, "No Strings Attached." While it says that having to conceal your true feelings about a hook-up can make you lonely, the article is otherwise an endorsement of casual sex.
O'Keefe did not get her daughter a subscription. She did invite her into the living room for a sit-down about the phenomenon. Too soon for the conversation? O'Keefe worried it was too late. "I wanted to be the first to talk to her about sexual intimacy," she says. "Kids today have to make split-second decisions. I wanted to be sure she heard my opinion before she's in one of those situations. I told her I don't believe boys or girls benefit from casual encounters. To remove emotion from sex makes it meaningless and empty."
Friend with benefits n, slang, also FWB. A one-time or occasional sexual partner within a subset of peers who agrees to an unspoken set of rules, esp. not having feelings about the partner; keeping feelings to oneself if they arise; not expecting social niceties such as loyalty, monogamy, or conversation. Sometimes interchangeable with hooking up.
Teens and young adults tend to see it differently. Bard College developmental psychologist Nancy Darling, who specializes in teen coupling, says teens cite a range of benefits to FWB: not getting stuck with one person; not having the time or wanting the responsibility for a relationship; eliminating the chance of heartbreak.
Ironically, there is potential for more hurt, not less.
"Because we are human beings, when we engage in this intimate act we do have feelings, even if the rules say you aren't supposed to," says Darling. In fact, the rules say you can't even say that you have the feelings, so when you do, you have to pretend you don't. "You can't complain, you can't blame, and friends aren't so sympathetic. This can lead to as much depression as any break-up ever did," she says.
Piorkowski explains why: "You feel ashamed for wanting closeness. 'Everyone else is fine without it, what's wrong with me?' You feel bad about yourself, not for having sex, but for having feelings."
FWB also sets young adults up to be sexually exploited. "Since the rules are that it's no big deal, a teen who doesn't want to [participate] feels a lot of pressure, boy or girl," says Darling.
Judy Bohn of Arlington has seen that with her 20-year-old daughter. She managed to avoid the FWB syndrome in high school but found it pervasive at the small college she chose. "She felt like a pariah," Bohn says, and eventually transferred to a large school where differences are tolerated.
It's not that friendship groups are automatically bad. It's not that there is no dating in high school or college, or that casual sex never leads to a relationship. If neither is the norm, however, it takes strength to be different. Parents can help.
"Parents do a good job of talking with teens about STDs and sexual safety, but they need to do more talking about the other aspects of a healthy relationship: mutuality, connectedness, shared interests," says Monica Rodriguez of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. She says that even though your teen may sit stonily through a "conversation" in which you express your values, he or she most likely is hungry to hear what you have to say. Ideally, this begins long before adolescence. Think Jane O'Keefe.
Rodriguez is critical of popular culture's influence on teenage sexual behavior. "Young people aren't making this stuff up," she says. "They're learning it from . . . TV, movies, ads, and lyrics."
Her advice to parents includes giving children critical-thinking skills with which to scrutinize the popular culture's message that casual sex is easy and fun, and that everyone does it. Look at the world through your pre-teen's or teen's eyes and help them frame questions: What is the message here? Do I believe it? Is it for me? What do I want in my relationships? What will get me there? What won't?
Darling says teens most likely to avoid hook-ups or FWB are those who are comfortable with emotional closeness, and who will stand up to being mistreated within a relationship, whether it's with parents, siblings, or friends. That's partly a matter of temperament but also a result of how well parents communicate values about intimacy.
"These are not easy conversations," says Rodriguez. "What's worse is to never have them at all."
Contact Barbara Meltz at meltz@globe.com
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
Posted by rhett at 10:29 PM | Comments (0)
Can we effectively communicate via new technology? Have we moved from an incarnational form of communication, to a more technologically driven, removed form?
I have taken the last few days off from blogging, just feeling exhausted, and thinking through this topic of God's will. I was ready to get up this morning, and continue down that direction, when I came across an excerpt of writing, issued by Pope John Paul II. The excerpt was posted today on Hugh Hewitt, and dealt with the issue of the Church and media. Such a huge topic for the Church these days, especially for everyone who either communicates via computer technology, or is wanting to.
Before I post this excerpt, let me say a few things. One, communicating through technology could come in the form of a few different types of transmissions. You could be a blogger. You could just surf the web. You could primarily email. You might IM. You might text message. Or maybe you do everything through your cell phone. These and more, are all ways that we communicate through technology, and it's ever changing forms.
But the questions I have been asking myself recently have been: 1) How effective is communication through new technology, such as blogging? 2) Do messages, or ideas, or nuances, or emotions, or expressions get lost through the transmission of communication via technology? 3) Do we tend to mis-read, or mis-interpret people when we communicate through technology? 4) Have we substituted the face to face encounter with people, for communication through technology?
Why all these questions? Because as much as I love blogging, or communicating through email, or through text messaging, sometimes I wonder if the effectiveness of my communication has waned because of this? Or have I gotten too lazy? Do I avoid the face to face, and submit emails instead? All these questions have arised recently, as some of my friends and I have found ourselves going back and having to explain to each other what we actually meant in a communication statement, done through technology. Or we have questioned, whether or not we were too harsh, or too emotional, or too...whatever. Somehow, during the transmission of communication our real emotions, or hand gestures, or body expressions were lost, than if it was a face to face encounter.
So though I think the new forms of communication are a great thing, there is a cost to be paid, and some cautions to be warranted.
As I was reading the Gospel of John last night, I came across this passage. "Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:16-17). Amazing passage. But what I have been thinking about is this: How do we as Christians, communicate grace and truth, and the person of Jesus Christ through new forms of technology? And when we communicate through new technology, have we tended to try and communicate the truth, without the grace? I mean really...it seems like grace is sometimes the first thing to go when we no longer have to have a face to face encounter with someone. Being in the presence of someone changes everything. God communicated through the prophets and writings, until the Incarnation, where Jesus came in the flesh, to communicate to us. But maybe we have headed the other direction? Have we moved from a fleshly, incarnational ministry, to a more technologically driven one?
I'm wondering about these things, and I have some things to think through. But until the next post, meditate on the Pope's statements below: posted at Hugh Hewitt
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Posted at 3:25 PM, Pacific
Pope John Paul issued a letter on the Church and the media, and here is one example of the power of his presentation:
To Communicate with the Power of the Holy Spirit
13. The great challenge of our time for believers and for all people of good will is that of maintaining truthful and free communication which will help consolidate integral progress in the world. Everyone should know how to foster an attentive discernment and constant vigilance, developing a healthy critical capacity regarding the persuasive force of the communications media.
Also in this field, believers in Christ know that they can count upon the help of the Holy Spirit. Such help is all the more necessary when one considers how greatly the obstacles intrinsic to communication can be increased by ideologies, by the desire for profit or for power, and by rivalries and conflicts between individuals and groups, and also because of human weakness and social troubles. The modern technologies increase to a remarkable extent the speed, quantity and accessibility of communication, but they above all do not favor that delicate exchange which takes place between mind and mind, between heart and heart, and which should characterize any communication at the service of solidarity and love.
"Throughout the history of salvation, Christ presents himself to us as the “communicator” of the Father: “God, in these last days, has spoken to us through his Son” ( Heb 1:2). The eternal Word made flesh, in communicating Himself, always shows respect for those who listen, teaches understanding of their situation and needs, is moved to compassion for their suffering and to a resolute determination to say to them only what they need to hear without imposition or compromise, deceit or manipulation. Jesus teaches that communication is a moral act, “ A good person brings forth good out of a store of goodness, but an evil person brings forth evil out of a store of evil. I tell you, on the Day of Judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak. By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” ( Mt 12: 35-37).
Posted by rhett at 04:18 PM | Comments (0)
February 18, 2005
Finding the Will of God? What does that mean? Is that possible?
As I was online this morning, I came across a wonderful post by my friend Cameron Jorgenson at Summa Aesthetica. Everyone should be reading his posts...one of the smartest guys I know...he will definitely have a few books out in the next five years, and they will be ones that you will want to read.
But back to the topic at hand. Cameron discusses the concept of finding God's will, and whether or not that is something that we can actually find, or whether, the whole process of trying to discern God's will is a more frustrating and complicating matter.
I think this is a very good discussion, and very timely as a lot of us, especially those of you in my college group are on the cusp of making very big decisions...some that may feel like the future of your life's direction may be hanging on whether you properly choose God's will or not. That is a tough place to be.
In part, Cameron states:
"First of all, that is the message of Proverbs...the day to day realities of life should be guided by wisdom, the sort of common sense shaped by God and wise fellow travelers along the way. (Of course, Job and Ecclesiastes muddy the waters a bit by demonstrating that life is complex, and even the wise life is not always rosy)
Also, in proverbs you get this personified Wisdom in the early chapters. That character gets expanded even more in some of the pre New Testament writings that Protestants don’t accept as scripture. The reason this is interesting is in John chapter 1 where it describes Jesus as the Word, many of the phrases echo this picture of personified Wisdom. There is the subtle message that Jesus is Wisdom in the flesh.
All of that is to say something relatively simple--I think my brother out theologized me. We will drive ourselves crazy trying to read God’s mind and figure out God’s will. Besides, there is a scary side effect to all of that…I begin to feel like a fortune teller reading tea leaves. God’s ways are bigger than that. We can’t know with clarity all the time. Sometimes there is a sense of rightness, and other times there is the grit-your-teeth reality of tough decisions.
The role of prayer and thinking and asking advice of wise friends is to shape us, to hone our instincts, to help us conform to wisdom. Romans 12 seems to get at this: “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good pleasing and perfect will.” While this could be interpreted as a clear endorsement of the “will of God” position, I think one could read this as a call to undergo transformation according to the pattern of Christ, the highest sort of Wisdom, which enables us to feel our way through the tough situations. Even then, I am not sure there is always a clear “right answer,” especially if it involves choosing between two good things (i.e. finishing your education, or taking a job).
And, to make that leap you don’t have to ditch the idea of Providence. (Doing so would be a tragic loss.) Providence is God’s active care of and involvement in the universe. What that looks like is beyond me. It is deeply shrouded in mystery, in the same league as the Trinity and the human/divine natures of Christ. While it is an inescapable idea, I don’t think we have access to fully comprehend it. If my little bro is right, wisdom is as close as it gets."
I think that Cameron is right on in many aspects, and this is something that I have been wrestling with for about a year and half after a hearing a life changing sermon on this subject while at the young adult retreat.
How you view the Will of God, and if that can be determined, will be greatly shaped by what type of theology you have. What do I mean? Well, your outlook at the future, and how that is discerned, or determined, and whether or not that falls in line with the Will of God, can be very different, if say, you are a Five Point Calvinist, which many in the reformed faith are. Or it might take on a very different look if you are someone who is more influenced by arminianism. Or what if you are being shaped by open theism? What type of theology you have, or believe in, will greatly shape the outlook you have on determining the Will of God.
As for this question of whether or not we can determine the Will of God, is still up for debate for me on one level, and on another level I have come to some conclusions.
These are some of my conclusions of my work in progress:
1) I believe that the Will of God is more of a moral command, to not be conformed to the world, but rather to be tranformed through the presence and power of God, than it is about choosing one thing over another (i.e. a job, or a relationship, or a school; see Cameron's post on this).
"Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God--this is true worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will." (Romans 12:1-2.)
How about this?
"As for other matters, brothers and sisters, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God." (I Thess. 4:1-5)
2) Seeking out God's Will, discerning what He wants you to do, is more about pursuing God, and living among and treating others with Christ's love, than it is about finding the one perfect thing. The one perfect decision.
"Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other. And we urge you, brothers and sisters, warn those who are idle and disruptive, encourage the disheartened, help the weak, be patient with everyone. Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always strive to do what is good for each other and everyone else. Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus." (I Thess. 5:12-18.)
3) Constantly fretting over the one, right, Will of God paralyzes us from living freely in Christ, or experiencing the abundant life he has brought us. (John 10:10)
4) Because the Will of God is more about conforming to the mind of Christ, and not the ways of the world, how you live then will greatly affect how you discern future decisions. For example, if in I Thess. 4 I am urged to be sanctified, and not live like the pagans, then how I am living can either cloud, or bring clarity to the decisions I want to make. Maybe your lack of discernment is less about God not revealing this one perfect thing to you, than it is about how you live, how you use your body, or whether or not you give yourself over to passionate lust, and not living in a holy and honorable way.
These are just a few of the conclusions I have come to in this area of thinking, as I am continually seeking out God's will, if you will, in this matter. Though this may be a bad analogy, this is one that I have to appreciate when it comes to God's will. And it is the analogy of a football field, and football game.
Like the boundaries of a football field, God too has given us some boundaries to live our life within. I see these mainly being moral boudaries, which keep us from living like pagans, and keep us from being only about passionate lust, but rather help us live lives that are holy and honorable. And within those moral boundaries, there is a life being lived out, or a game being played in the football analogy. Within those boundaries there are multiple players, with multiple plays. There are rules, and there are penalties for violation of the rules. But there is only one task: That is to cross the finish line and score, so that at the outcome of the game, you have more points than your opponent. I see this as very analagous to life in many ways, while at other places it breaks down.
But I believe God has placed in this world, a world full of many different people, who all contain many different possibilites. All of this affects us as a person. Our interactions, the decisions we make, the outcome of those decisions. Some we seem to control, and others we seem not to. But our task, or job, or goal, or vocation (whatever you prefer) is to live that abundant and free life, within the moral boundaries that God has set-up. To be conformed to the person of Jesus Christ. But how we go about doing that, can take many different routes. I may marry this person, or that person. I may take this job or that job. I may have kids, or not have kids. Are any of these decisions outside of the Will of God? When we are being renewed, and transformed by the person of Jesus Christ, we go down many different paths, in aim of one direction. To love, and to serve God, and others. Which route I take may not be the issue, but rather, how I conform to the person of Christ on that route that I choose.
This obviously will have a lot of problems for many of you. Some of you don't want that responsibility. That is too scary for you. Others will think this takes too much away from God's sovereignty, and gives men and women too much free will.
Quick question: Isn't it interesting how we all want to have free will, and make decisions in life, but we really don't want to take responsibility for them when they fail, or we make a mistake? Then we say, that must have been God's will. Or isn't interesting how we want to give some decisions to God, and others we do not? It's like we trust Him with this, but not these? Or isn't it interesting how we want to give God complete sovereignty, but then when something bad happens, we want to take the responsibilty off of God, and blame it on people's free choices? The problem of theodicy. Very inconsistent of us. So what is it? Do we really want God's Will, or do we want our own will? Are we really seeking out God's Will anyways, or are we hoping that our wills will be what God wants?
I would challenge you to think through these things, and to be in pray about them. Do not be afraid to have your whole understanding, or paradigm of belief in this area, blow up in your face. Wrestling through this issue, and not settling for an easy answer, will bring you to a deeper understanding, and more clarity.
A book that has helped me greatly in this area, is by the renowed, Old Testament, and Hebrew scholar Bruce Waltke. His book Finding the Will of God: A Pagan Notion? is an amazing book. He believes, as do I, that a lot of our notions, or attempts to find the will of God, are more based on pagan practices, as well as our attempt to simply life down to easy steps, without us having to really wrestle or struggle through anything.
Let's begin this dialogue. What are your thoughts?
Posted by rhett at 11:28 AM | Comments (0)
February 17, 2005
Bible Translation Questions?
For all of you who put some tough questions to me at Mammoth over Bible translations, specifically the TNIV...or for those of you who have questions about it in general. Mark Roberts, pastor, scholar, author, and blogger, from Irvine Presbyterian has a great series on it right now. Go to the link above and read his last four postings. Very insightful.
Posted by rhett at 06:59 PM | Comments (0)
Sex Part 2/Sex, Christianity and Culture: Created Goodness
I have begun to have a better understanding just how difficult it is to have frank talks with people about sex! I don't mean discussions that guys have in the locker room, or in the privacy of their apartment with each other, or the discussions women have when they are out together, or having a slumber party. But I mean, real, honest, open discussions about sex, their sexuality, and how it fits into the Biblical context. Is it not any wonder that some parents find it so difficult to have this discussion with their kids? But by not having that discussion, who is left to teach their kids about the proper way to express their sexuality, and in what context, according to God's Word? Certainly our culture will pick up where the parent's left off, or where the parents had even failed to start. Hollywood will do it. Media. Advertising. Internet. Magazines. Movies. Music. Television. You get the point. All of these mediums are screaming out and vying for the attention of young people. So it is with this in mind that I decided that I needed to be honest with my students about the topic of sex. If the church can't share this news, then who can? And really, shouldn't we as Christians be the first to be open about sex, especially since it was part of the design by our Creator, God?
So who cares if my face gets red from blushing, as I speak out words that my students have never heard come from my lips. My momentary embarrasment is worth it, if I might help others through the heartache and pain, or help rescue some students from going in the wrong direction sexually, or if I might be able to help shine God's redemption on their past failures.
Last night was the second talk in my four part series on Sex, Christianity and Culture: Created Goodness, Sinful Distortions, and Redeemed Potential. On January 26, I began with an overview of Sex, Christianity and Culture, and last night I picked up on the theme of "Created Goodness."
One of the most important messages that I wanted to convey to my students last night was that sex is a good thing. A beautiful and wonderful thing. But only when it is expressed in the proper context and relationship that God intended for it. When it is expressed outside of those boundaries, than all kinds of things go haywire, and we fall into what Lewis Smedes referred to as "sinful distortions."
So why a talk on the Biblical foundation of sex? First, because as I mentioned before, with everything else in this world begging for your attention, and for you to follow their ideas and rules about sex, I think it's about time that we look at what the Bible says. Second, since we as Christians view God as Creator of everything, from the universe, to the earth, to humanity, then isn't it important that we look at what His original intent, or design for sexuality was and is?
With that in mind, let me say that the topic of sexuality is a very heated and controversial subject, because it really cuts to the core of who we are as creatures and people made in the image of God, reflecting His likeness.
"How to feel about our sexuality is part of a larger question. For the Christian believer, at any rate, the larger question is how to feel about creation. If our sexuality belongs to creation, our feelings about it can be of a piece with God's feelings about what he made." (Lewis Smedes in Sex for Christians).
With that in mind, I approached last night's sermon, wanting to accomplish a few things. One, I wanted to look at a passage of Scripture that I believed really set the foundation, and gave guiding principles as to who we are as sexual beings, and how we are to live that out. Second, I wanted to allow the text to speak, to allow the mystery of the passage permeate our thinking, and not to simply try and pull systematic principles out of the text. Sex, marriage and relationships, are much too complicated and mysterious to simply put in simple, mechanistic terms. Third, I wanted to stir up their thinking. I wanted to pick a text, and to preach an angle on the text that they were probably not used to hearing. I think that my goal, and our goal as Christians in preaching is to stir people to think. To not simply provide some simple answer so that they can nod their heads up and down, and uniformally fit into the right group.
The Bible does not say tons about our sexuality. If you are looking for a sex manual, the Bible is not it. Though some might argue for Song of Solomon. If you are looking to the Bible to lay out clear and simple do's and dont's as to how far you can go physically, the Bible is not that either. Rather, the Bible provides a strong Biblical foundation that we can build on. That is why I began in Genesis, using that as the foundation for our sexuality.
With Genesis as our foundation for Biblical sexuality, there are three things that I want all of my students, and you as readers to keep in mind. These are three problems, or assumptions, or biases that I think we all can carry at times that keep us from having a healthy perspective on our sexuality, or sex in general:
1) I think that a lot of Christians hold a very Gnostic, dualistic view of sex, and especially our own sexuality. What is a Gnosticism and dualism? In very simple terms which don't quite do it justice, it is the belief that all matter is evil, and that spirit is good. Therefore, anything related to the flesh, or its desires would be evil, and not of God, while those things related to the spiritual would be seen as good. For more details, read up on gnosticism. This was an early heresy that a great part of the church was fighting, as well as the author of I John, where in I John 4:2-3, he writes, "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God." You see, many gnostics and dualists did not actually believe that Jesus could have come in the flesh because their view was that only spirit matter was good, and flesh was bad. I think many Christians still carry this view around with them unconsciously. They have been taught, either at home, or in the church, that any type of desires that they have, and that are related to their fleshly urges are automatically bad, and therefore, could not be related to the spiritual and divine matters related to God. My professor friend confirms this idea from the sex questionnaires that she issues as part of her class on Biblical sexuality. Most students she says, still carry a negative view of sexuality with them based on this dualist, gnostic, heretical view.
2) Speaking more specifically to men. I think and believe, that how we as men view women in the creation account, will greatly affect not only our future marriages, but how our sexuality is expressed in that relationship. What do I mean? When God says in Genesis 2:18, "It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a helpmate," the Hebrew word "ezer" is used, meaning, suitable helpmate, co-laborer, helper, etc. That is what God has intended for us as men. But I think in many Christian circles, men prefer to use, or confuse the word "ezer" with "eber" which is slave, and which is picked up after the Fall. And I think how you decide to view women, as helper and co-equal, or as subservient, and a slave, will have drastic implications on your sexuality, and sex life in marriage.
3) As creatures, people made in the image of God, what does that mean for us then? If we our sexual beings, and we are made in God's image, what does that say about God as a sexual being? Or maybe we prefer not to think of God in those terms, as having sexuality. But doesn't our sexuality, point back to a Creator, who sees sexuality as something that is to be important? We are made in His image? Part of this goes back to the gnostic views, but I think we are more comfortable as viewing God only in terms of divinity, and not humanity, so we would prefer to keep our sexuality on a lower level of nature, than our spiritual. These views will affect not only what you think about your sexuality, but about God as well.
It is important that we are aware of our biases, or assumptions whenever we approach a subject, or when we look in the Bible. Because our prior assumptions and biases greatly shape what we read and interpret, sometimes blocking out what God is trying to say to us. So with those three assumptions fresh in our mind, let's begin by looking at the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, and how they help us set a Biblical foundation for our sexuality.
In Genesis 1:26-31 we get a very brief account of the creation of humanity, as in comparison to what we will read in Genesis 2. But Genesis 1:26-27 says:
"Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.' ' So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.'" (NRSV)
From this passage we get a quick snapshot of the creation of humanity, and the distinguishing of the sexes, male and female. God then commands them to be fruitful and to multiply. We already see then that a male and female relationship is the foundation of our sexuality, and a sexual union is established, where they are asked to continue to multiply.
But then we come to Genesis 2, which I believe is one of the most beautiful, most mysterious, and most poetic passages in all of Scripture. One of the beautiful things about going through seminary was the studying of Greek and Hebrew. And as I read through Genesis 2 in Hebrew, I realize how much of the beauty, and poetry, and mystery of the text is lost in the English translation. In Genesis 2:7-24 we pick up a very amazing story.
In Genesis 2:7 we find the creation of "man", or the "adam". "Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being." God takes from the ground, from the dirt, the materials to form "man". And then God breathes into his nostrils and the "man" is given life. In the Hebrew text, the word for "man" is "adam" (not in the proper name sense; by the way, the proper name Adam, is not used till Genesis 4:25), and the Hebrew name for ground, earth, dust is "adamah." Leaving many theologians and scholars to say that this creation of "man", is a creation of really this "earth creature." This creature, that is created out of the dust of the ground, who shares the almost exact sounding name to that of the ground. He is a creation without any sexual differentiation. And this "adam" is put in the garden to tend to it.
Then we come to another remarkable passage in 2:18, "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.'" Though "adam/man/earth creature" was there in the garden, in communion with God, that was still not enough. God then begins to search for a suitable helper, or partner, "ezer" in Hebrew." So then God forms out of the same ground, and earth, and dust, that he formed 'adam" out of, he begins to form every animal of the field, and bird of the air. This is more evidence for scholars to believe that the creation of "adam/man", is more similar to that of "earth creature", because they were formed from the same material. God brings all these creatures to 'adam", and 'adam" names them, giving them an identity. "But for the man there was not found a helper as his partner" (2:20). A very funny story if you think about it. God realizes that it is not good for "adam/man" to be alone, so he creates all these animals and brings them to "adam/man", but none of them were suitable. A very early version of dating as one of my Fuller professors jokes about.
So in Genesis 2:21-22 the text tells us, "So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man." So beautiful. God doesn't take from the earth, or the ground, or the dust, the same materials that he had used to create "adam/man/earth creature" and all the other creatures. But rather, he tears open the "man's" side, and takes out something close to his heart, something close to the core of who he is, a rib, and he forms woman out of it.
And then the Hebrew changes. In Genesis 2:23, it says, "Then the man (adam) said, 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman (ishah), for out of Man (ish) this one was taken.'" Did you catch that? The "earth creature", "adam", or "man", who was formed from the same materials as the animals, is given a new name, a new identity. He becomes 'ish", or 'Man", and the "Woman" is "ishah". It is not until "Woman" is created that the "adam/man/earth creature" realizes his full idenity, realizes who he is. Where there was no sexual differentiation in the text before this passage, there is now sexual differentiation in the union of "Man" and "Woman", of "ish" and "ishah." For a closer look at this passage in Hebrew and English or here.
Then the passage closes in Genesis 2:24-25, saying, "Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to hiw wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed." A mystery for sure. Two people, with full identities, coming together as whole persons, and becoming one flesh. Not explainable. Only something that God can do. And the passage closes with a reminder of why sex should only be expressed between a husband and wife, a man and a woman, in a commited, marriage relationship. They were both naked, and not ashamed.
And that is how that beautiful story in Genesis 2, of the creation of man and woman ends. So what does that story have to do with our sexuality, or with sex in general? Everything! Sure there are other places in the Bible, such as Paul's words in I Corinthians 7, where we could turn and read. But would you start a novel at the tail end of the story? I hope not. So why do we read only parts of the Bible, or read only the New Testament, without properly building a solid foundation from the beginning. Jesus fulfills the OT in the NT, but the OT is not replaced. Genesis is our solid foundation. In this text in Genesis 2, we are given a solid, Biblical foundation of humanity, of sexuality, of our relationships with each other. So what exactly does this story in Genesis 2 have to say to our sexuality? Good thing you asked. Here are some things that I think we can take from this story:
1) Sex is a great and beautiful thing when it is expressed in the right context. God forms man and woman, and unites them as one flesh in a sexual union. It is a union made in God's image, which points us back to the Creator, who is a designer, and designed sex, and delights when the sexual act is expressed in the right relationship and context. "For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving," (I Timothy 4:4).
2) The right context, the right relationship for sex, in only in the union of man and woman. Together. They are "ish" and "ishah". Man and Woman. Nothing else was suitable for 'adam", for this "earth creature", but this woman. And it is when these two come together that they exhibit, or display the full image of God. We have a full realization of who we are, when we are in relation, between a man and woman. We can have this realization in a non-sexual way, between friends, between a man and a woman, where there is sexual differentiation, and we are not simply 'adam", or "earth creature". But for a sexual union, for sexual expression, the only place for it is in the marriage relationship of a man and a woman.
3) Other sexual unions are not a proper expression of the Biblical account. Whether it be between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or between something more perverse, those are not Biblical, proper expressions of sexuality. The only proper expression is between a man and a woman, and anything outside of that leads to a distorted and sinful view of our sexuality.
4) Not only is sexual expression only proper between a man and a woman, but it is only reserved for marriage. And this expression in marriage, is best understood when each partner, man and woman, has the proper understanding of helpmate, or partners, of co-equality. A woman is not subservient to man, nor vice-versa. Paul will speak on this act of mutual submission in Ephesians 5, and any interpretation of Paul, or the role of women in the NT, is not properly understood, unless it is viewed at in light of the Genesis 2 account and other OT passages.
5) Sexual expression through marriage is a joining of two people, two individuals. A man and a woman becoming one flesh. It is a joint union with both people bringing all of who they are together, not half and half. I think that in many sexual relationships, and marriages, especially in the church, it is taught that the joining of two people, means both people will have to leave part of who they are behind, in order for the two to come together. And in Christian circles, this usually means the woman. I know you can think of many examples. If not, call me, and I will give you some. The woman is often taught that she is supposed to surrender her identity as a person, as a woman, in order to be formed, or joined with the man. This is not a good view. (If you don't think we inherit some rough baggage in this area, then read up on some of the early church fathers, and their views of woman; even Augustine, who didn't view women too highly, was barely gracious enough to say that women would be women in heaven, and not turned into men). Rather, the Genesis account displays to us, two individuals, man and woman, coming together as their whole selves, and becoming one, in a mysterious union that only God understands. The poet Rainer Maria Rilke has some great insight on this, when he says,
"The point of marriage is not to create a quick commonality by tearing down all boundaries; on the contrary, a good marriage is one in which each partner appoints the other to be the guardian of his solitude, and thus they show each other the greatest possible trust. A merging of two people is an impossibility, and where it seems to exist, it is a hemming-in, a mutual consent that robs one party or both parties of their fullest freedom and development. But once the realization is accepted that even between the closest people infinite distances exist, a marvelous living side-by-side can grow up for them, if they succeed in loving the expanse between them, which gives them the possibility of always seeing each other as a whole and before an immense sky..............Love is at first not anything that means merging, giving over, and uniting with another (for what would a union be of something unclarified and unfinished, still subordinate--?), it is a high inducement to the individual to ripen, to become something in himself for another's sake, it is a great exacting claim upon him, something that chooses him out and calls him to vast things."
6) When sex is expressed in this proper relationship, there is no shame, no guilt. Because it is being expressed in the relationship that God has designed, there is not fear, or reservation in the sexual act.. How many of us carry around some shame or guilt because we have been in a sexual relationship outside of marriage? That is not freedom. There is hesitantness and reservation, and shame over many things, i.e. "will we get pregnant", "am I being used", "are they committed to me", "do they really love me." But in marriage, sexual expression between a man and a woman achieves its highest pinnacle, because it is where God created sex to be, without restraint, and guilt and shame.
This is what I have learned from the text in Genesis 2. And I believe this is the best text to convey the most comprehensive understanding of sex, and our sexuality. And, I think that rather than breaking everything down into some philosophical or theological system, the story narrative of Genesis 2 best expresses the understanding, the mystery, and the complexity of the bonding of man and woman in sex.
This is just the beginning of our journey as we look at the created goodness of sex. We will head next week into looking at what happens when our sexuality expresses itself outside of these boundaries that God has laid out, and heads into the area of sinful distortions. And in two weeks, we will look at what God does with our pasts, and how he can, and does bring about redemption and healing for our lives, when our sexuality was expressed in the wrong contexts.
But for now, let me leave you with a very insightful, and blunt quote, by the late ethicist and theologian, Lewis Smedes:
"Our sexuality is the form we take in life as persons. In this sense, sexuality has to do with much more than genital sex. People cannot live by orgasms alone, nor even by exquisitely sensuous love-making. Any two persons who are living a full life together as persons know that their sexual relations cover a lot more ground than the few moments of intercourse. Sexuality is involved in the quiet hours of communication and contemplation as much as in the volcanic moments. The sexploitation of our time is actually a vast shrinkage of sexuality becuase it concentrates almost wholly on the biological experience of orgasm and everything that stimulates people towards it."
For further study, or reading on this issue, check out:
Sex for Christians
*bad title, but a landmark book in biblical and human sexuality; also very controversial; read with caution; I am not a proponent of all his views, but he says some things better than anyone else out there in this area.
On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology"
Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Creation, Volumes III/1, 2, 3, 4
Man As Male And Female: A Study In Sexual Relationships From A Theological Point Of View
Posted by rhett at 03:53 PM | Comments (0)
February 15, 2005
A commenter responds to orthodoxy and orthopraxy....
A response to my blog on Tuesday about orthodoxy (right thinking), and orthopraxy (right practice). The church needs more people like Andrew...
Posted by: Rev. Andrew Eagles - E-mail=[mailto:andreweagles@hotmail.com] Homepage=[] at February 15, 2005 22:53:31
Rhett, the distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxy is fascinating. Might I try to push it even a bit further? Might it be less about "right thinking" or even "right acting" and more about right relationship? As far as orthodoxy goes, those in the universal Church hold many different orthodoxies and yet remain united under the saving actions and grace of Jesus Christ. I often like the Eastern Christian concept of theologuema (sp?) (those things that are not salvific are okay for us to hold different opinions about as we are in process / in the gray about) over the divisiveness of dogmatic orthodoxy. As to orthopraxy, it is a good concept to point out our constant failing to live what we believe, but isn’t that the struggle of Romans 7? Isn’t orthopraxy – in a holy sense - impossible? But the heart and graceful form of both of these concepts are melded in a concentration on right relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. Here, “right thinking” is held in the midst of the personality of relationship. In relationship we can know instead of theorizing yet also hold mystery in the otherness of our relation – as well as respecting the mystery of our Christian brothers and sisters personal wrestling with God. Also, in this, “right acting” is also balanced by a dependence upon the right and final actions of Jesus on our behalf and his invitation to follow him in grace and out of love. Also involved in this is a dependence upon the Spirit to empower and lead us in living The Way.
This train of thought is very untested so tell me what you think. I think I just have difficulty with the polarization that McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy seems to bring to things. But let me reserve the right to retract that statement when I reread that chapter. Nevertheless right relationship fits a postmodern mindset better than orthopraxy anyway and it also lends more credence to the heart of our faith than its religious tendencies.
Oh, and great links and discussion points on the other issues raised.
Posted by rhett at 11:33 PM | Comments (0)
Post--Valentine Thoughts From Two of My Favorite Poets
Ahhhhhhh, Valentines! Well, it has definitely been much better for me the last couple of years. Last year with my girlfriend. And this year with the girlfriend from last year who is now my fiance. Sweet!
Two of my favorite poets can at times tend to be a little angst ridden, but as far as I'm concerned, no one says it better than Rainer Maria Rilke and Kahlil Gibran, especially on the issue of a couple's space in their togetherness.
Begin by reading my friend Cameron's post over at Summa Aesthetica. He has some interesting thoughts on chaos and order, in love...and there are some interesting comments on his post.
Now for Rilke and Gibran
"On Love & Other Difficulties..."
Rilke on Marriage...
"The point of marriage is not to create a quick commonality by tearing down all boundaries; on the contrary, a good marriage is one in which each partner appoints the other to be the guardian of his solitude, and thus they show each other the greatest possible trust. A merging of two people is an impossibility, and where it seems to exist, it is a hemming-in, a mutual consent that robs one party or both parties of their fullest freedom and development. But once the realization is accepted that even between the closest people infinite distances exist, a marvelous living side-by-side can grow up for them, if they succeed in loving the expanse between them, which gives them the possibility of always seeing each other as a whole and before an immense sky."
Rainer Maria Rilke
May 14, 1904, Rome
"To love is good, too: love being difficult.
For one human being to love another: that is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks, the ultimate, the last test and proof, the work for which all other work is but preparation.
For this reason young people, who are beginners in everything, cannot yet know love: they have to learn it.
With their whole being, with all their forces, gathered close about their lonely, timid, upward-beating heart, they must learn to love.
But learning-time is always a long, secluded time, and so loving, for a long while ahead and far on into life, is--solitude, intensified and deepened loneness for him who loves.
Love is at first not anything that means merging, giving over, and uniting with another (for what would a union be of something unclarified and unfinished, still subordinate--?), it is a high inducement to the individual to ripen, to become something in himself for another's sake, it is a great exacting claim upon him, something that chooses him out and calls him to vast things."
Kahlil Gibran, "The Prophet"
Marriage
"THEN Almitra spoke again and said, And what of Marriage, master?
And he answered saying:
You were born together, and together you shall be for evermore.
You shall be together when the white wings of death scatter your days.
Aye, you shall be together even in the silent memory of God.
But let there be spaces in your togetherness.
And let the winds of the heavens dance between you.
Love one another, but make not a bond of love:
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.
Fill each other's cup but drink not from one cup.
Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf.
Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,
Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.
Give your hearts, but not into each other's keeping. For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts. And stand together yet not too near together: For the pillars of the temple stand apart, And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other's shadow."
Posted by rhett at 10:39 PM | Comments (0)
February 14, 2005
Reflections from our Mammoth retreat: Is there room for discussion at the evangelical table? Thoughts on hell, annihilation, Bible translations and politics.....
I always love going on retreats with my college students. The retreats are usually very exhausting on many levels, from the physical (not getting sleep), to the emotional (retreats tend to be common place for deep confiding in me), to spiritual (I receive lots of questions, and much conversation ensues).
So it is not unusual that I am returning from this retreat with my head filled with all kinds of thoughts, information and the like. What I want to do in this blog, is to simply raise what some of the issues were, and then to provide some resources and discussions for these topics. I am not providing answers so that you do not have to think. I have been thinking through these issues for years, and have come to some conclusions on them. As for the others, well I'm still thinking through some of them, and I have filed them over "in the margins" at this point, as one of my favorite professors would say.
I realize that most of us are uncomfortable functioning in the "gray zones" especially when it comes to issues of theological orthodoxy (right thinking). But sometimes that is the place we need to be on our way to clearer understanding. By the way, a good question was recently posed by Brian McClaren who is part of the Emergent Church movement. In his latest book A Generous Orthodoxy, McClaren asks, why Christians are often more concerned about orthodoxy (right thinking) than orthopraxy (right practice)? That is a good question. I think that he has hit on something that happens a lot in Christian, and especially evangelical circles. And that is that we are more concerned with having the right orthodoxy, than we are with having the right orthopraxy. I think that both of those are important. We should have good theology, and we should practice what we believe. "Practice what you preach" we often say. The issues below are for us to not only formulate some good orthodoxy, but to live out some good orthopraxy. It is one thing for a Christian to think he or she has all the right answers, and correct doctrine, but it is a whole other thing to practice that among the people we live.
Issue #1:
One of my students raised the question of hell after reading our devotion on Revelation 21:5. That verse began a process where he began to question what hell was, and why hell. If there is going to be a new heaven and earth, what about hell? He stated, "Hell seems unjust. It seems to go against the character of God."
I assured him that he is not the first person to think on this issue, and that there is currently a debate in many theological circles over this issue, with key figures divided on the issue.
The debate: Is hell really a place, or is it more a state? And is annihilation a viable Biblical option?
Here is the debate in Christianity Today.
Issue #2:
What is the debate over all these Bible translations, and is one better than the other? Is the TNIV not a good translation because they have changed some language?
Here is the debate: TNIV.
Issue #3:
If you are at Bel Air Presbyterian Church, it is more than likely that you will lean right of center when it comes to political issues. That is a true generalization, though that does not fit everyone, nor all of my students. Some of the most interesting conversations I am a part of are discussions where someone left of center, and right of center, have an inteligible and respectful conversation on the relation of politics and the commands of Christ.
The debate: The guy who is often at the center of politics and Christianity is Jim Wallis of Sojourners.
I hope that these issues are some of the things that you have also been thinking over. In fact, you may be the one who raised them, or a part of the group that discussed them. Now begin the process of formulating a good orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
Posted by rhett at 04:17 PM | Comments (0)
February 11, 2005
Away at Mammoth
I am away this weekend with my college students at our annual winter retreat in Mammoth. I think that this is nice timing on God's part...putting me somewhere far away from good cell phone coverage and internet connections. I definitely need some rest, and some time to process all that is going through my head. But don't think for one moment that I won't be on the hunt for a T Mobile connection at Starbucks.
So don't expect much, if anything at all from me this weekend. I will be back on Sunday night, with some new posts on Monday.
Have a good weekend.
Posted by rhett at 12:45 PM | Comments (0)
February 09, 2005
Can the Church be relevant without bloggers?
The following is the most recent comment on my post on Monday titled "Thomas Kuhn, bloggers and the emerging church: Is the paradigm shift in technology and media a cue for the church?"
Wyatt Smith from the Armed Forces Foundation makes the following statement:
"Rhett, you had a lot of good things to say and you know I'm definitely with you on most of the stuff. However, I had one question on this quote from your blog:
'If the church wants to continue to be relevant, and to enter into dialogue with the culture at large, which it is wanting to reform, then it must have bloggers within it.'
Do you strongly believe that a church has to have bloggers within it to be relevant to culture? Take for example a church of 500 that is strategically located in Washington, DC, perhaps in the inner city. What if they're low tech or how about no tech. No webpage no anything. But, they impact people for Christ in their community through reaching out to its youth and elderly. They serve dinners to the homeless. They invite folks into their homes. They do everything that the Great Commission teaches us, yet they aren't blogging daily. Sure their scope or impact area may not reach beyond its small community. But I would argue they're still relevant."
That is a great question. One that we could discuss on many different levels. I would say this. No, I do not believe that a church is irrelevant because it does not have bloggers within it. I obviously view things from my own persepctive at times, and I happen to be at a church which has numerous resources, where having a web site is mandatory, and where lots of resources can be used to communicate. It's an important tool in my culture. But it may not be an important tool in some cultures.
But what I mean by that statement is this. I think it is important for the church to take advantage of all possible means, especially in technology and communication, so that they can most effectively and efficiently communicate the word of God. So a church can be relevant regardless. Some churches might have a different purpose, and technology might not be a part of that. Their culture may not be a part of a technological blogging culture. Contemplatives, monastics, etc. And I think that is a good thing. In fact, I would like to get away from technology at times as well. But if you are reading a blog, it is probably a part of your culture, and it may be an effective means to communicate.
I do believe that Christians, churches, etc., have always taken the most effective means of communicating when possible, and employed them on their behalf. You didn't need to print a book in the 16th Century to be relevant to culture, but the invention of the printing press, coinciding with Luther's translations of the text into German, sure did make the Scriptures readily relevant to the culture at large.
Bottom line...I can communicate one by one on phone or email, or I can communicate to hundreds of my students, and others, all at the same time. And throughout the week. I have found this to be a refining process for my students, and for myself, as we are in constant dialogue. This was not possible before I started blogging. But I must not also replace the face to face encounter in ministry with a blog instead. But rather, a blog is a tool that I add to my ministry.
Each church has to decide what is important to them, and if the use of a blog might benefit them, and the community they serve. A church might not be able to post a website because of a lack of resources, which is more the reason for someone inside that church to begin a blog (free at many places) to communicate with those who have a computer. So now, that church is not only relevant to the people doing the ministry in other areas, where technology is not as important, but it's relevant to the people in the church who are on computers.
Nothing has been more helpful to my own ministry and thinking, then instantly being connected to a web of people all around the world via the blog. It has given me new insight into my own ministry, and I no longer feel I'm alone on the journey.
I have a whole world of bloggers out there in which I am waiting to explore. So, you will not be irrelevant as a church without a blogger, but having one I believe, puts you light years in a direction ahead of the curve in which I believe ministry is heading with the shrinking of the world due to technology.
Posted by rhett at 09:51 PM | Comments (0)
Ash Wed..."From dust you came, and to dust you shall return."
Cameron Jorgenson over at Summa Aesthetica has a beautiful Ash Wednesday devotion that I think everyone should be reading.
I too was "corrupted" by my Lutheran friend into practicing traditional Christian discipines, and attending Ash Wednesday for the first time. My Easters have never been as rich as they have been since I was "corrupted" by him into practicing the season of Lent.
Posted by rhett at 11:07 AM | Comments (0)
February 08, 2005
Has Anyone Seen This Movie?
At the Emergent Conference this last weekend, I watched the movie, What The Bleep Do We Know!?. Yes, that's what it is called. I'm not censoring any words.
Has anyone seen this film? I had heard about it, and was told it was good. But I'm one of those people who would like to be able to tell people I see the movies playing at your local art theater, but I usually never get around to it.
Anyways, the movie is about quantum physics/mechanics, and how the discoveries in that field of science are beginning to shape some views of reality, perception and other sensory data, that are different than we have thought.
The movie tends to get pretty "new agey", but some of the hypothesis' and conclusions of quantum physics raise some interesting questions for the intersection of theology and science.
I found it to be very intriguing. And all I want to do now is read up on quantum physics, especially in the area of theology.
Any thoughts? Any good book recommendations?
I keep hearing about this guy John Polkinghorne, who after 25 years of teaching in a lucrative position as Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge, left to devote himself to the study of theology. I have not read any of his books, but would like to.
By the way. John Polkinghorne is not in the movie, but check out the articles below for some fascinating ideas.
Christianity Today Interview with John Polkinghorne
Posted by rhett at 02:36 PM | Comments (0)
The Church in Crisis? Good Questions and more....
It appears as if my post yesterday has caused a stir in some of my circle of friends. And out of that, all kinds of good questions have been put to me by these people (see some of the comments below). I think the stir has produced both positive and negative feelings as we all are wrestling with the Church, since we all are a part of it, and all love it. And my friends and I want to be a part of the constructive dialoguing that is taking place.
Good questions such as:
1) What exactly is the crisis in the church you are talking about? What needs to be reformed?
2) Is this paradigm shift you are talking about a fad, which is at the whim of the people, or a legit move into a new paradigm, led by God?
3) Is it possible that the very things you talk about as being a barrier to reform, such as arrogance and a clinging to power, actually a possible reality in those who want to reform? Meaning, there is as much a possibility that those who consider themselves reformers are actually trying to grasp for power in the new paradigm?
All good questions. Many of which I have thought about, and many of which I do not have answers. But this is a good place to dialogue on these things, and to critically inform one another as we attempt to bring light to the issues, in hopes of being a part of the great things God has been doing in the Church.
At this point, let me turn your attention to a few articles, and other bloggers, so as to create fodder for discussion.
What is the crisis?
One of the things that I see as a crisis in the church today is the issue of consumerism, church shopping, and the lack of commitment in community. All of which I struggle with myself, so as not to think I am only pointing fingers, when I am a big part of the problem. On this issue, check out the June 2003 issue of Christianity Today, Suburban Spirituality. Great critique of some of the issues that I believe are part of the crisis of the Church today. I would also point you to the blog of Tod Bolsinger, who is pastor of San Clemente Presbyterian Church. His site It Takes A Church has great material on it in regards to the purpose of community, "staying put", and the Church.
Why Church?
Why do I think it is so important? I have grown up in the church my whole life, and being a part of church community is one of the most amazing agents in formation. I was challenged greatly by the January 2005 article, The Church, Why Bother?. It is a great look at the importance of being a part of a church community. Again Tod Bolsinger has great posts on the topic of community.
What is Emergent?
For those of you who don't know what Emergent is, the November 2004 article, The Emergent Mystique, gives one a better understanding of what people are talking about. In regards to my own views as I mentioned yesterday. I am not saying, nor do I believe at this point that the "emergent movement" is the answer, or the next paradigm. But rather, it has been the one open place of dialogue for me where I can talk openly with other people who love the church, about the church. There are not many places you can do that without fear of some reprecussions, or with the fear of the Inquisition knocking down your door.
I hope these thoughts will give you food for thought. I would also point you to Cameron Jorgenson, who is a Ph.D. student at Baylor University. Cameron is interested in moral formation, and is one of the smart people when it comes to all issues. He will be posting some articles in the next few days and weeks on this issue of reform, innovation, etc. His site can be read at Summa Aesthetica.
Looking forward to hearing more....
Posted by rhett at 01:02 PM | Comments (0)
February 07, 2005
Thomas Kuhn, bloggers and the emerging church: Is the paradigm shift in technology and media a cue for the church?
That is the question that I have been pondering all weekend, after attending a four day conference in San Diego at the Emergent Convention, which is hosted by Youth Specialties and Emergent Village.
Hugh Hewitt posted a blog yesterday making the following observation:
"And speaking of change, I attended my old church and a new church today. I went to Washington D.C.'s National Presbyterian Church to see an old friend in ministry there, and then took the Red Line to Union Station to attend the 11:00 service at National Community Church, which meets in the multiplex there. While the mainline denominations are striving to keep and build their congregations, the energy of the new churches, as represented by the two-location NCC, is phenomenal. As with every other institution out there, Christian churches have to adapt quickly to a new culture or decline just as quickly as audience share has for old newspapers and the big networks."
Fascinating and insightful comments from someone whose vocation is not within the church, but rather in the Main Stream Media, and the blogosphere. As Hugh pointed out in his latest book BLOG, the paradigm shift of the Reformation was not just a matter of Martin Luther, but rather, a combination of many factors occuring at the right time. Luther had forerunners who had attempted reform such as John Wyclif and John Hus. But it was Martin Luther whose attempts at reform were ripened and came to fruition with invention of Johann Gutenberg's printing press.
Does the church now find itself in a position, where it is in transition from one paradigm shift to the next, in hopes of reformation, and has the shift that has already occured in technology and media ripen it's attempt at this reform?
Thomas Kuhn in his seminal work on paradigm shifts, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions observes the following:
"The pre-paradigm period in particular, is regularly marked by frequent and deep debates over legitimate methods, problems, and standards of solution, though they serve rather to define schools than to produce agreement.......Novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation."
I very much see the church in a pardigm shift at this point, though as to where it is on the continuum from one paradigm to the next is anybody's guess. Though I do believe the church has already moved from the pre-paradigm shift, into a more transitional period where it is waiting for a more cleary defined paradigm to come to fruition. This is something that we have seen already happen in the MSM (Main Stream Media), where the old guard of the major news affiliates and organizations has given way to a new reform by way of the blogosphere and the legions of bloggers. If one doubts this reformation, one only need to look at the statistics in Hugh's book, BLOG, or to some of my more recent posts to see the demise of the MSM.
This was the first year at the Emergent Conference where there was a workshop held for bloggers, and the concensus coming out of that group (though it was som