Archive for September, 2007

Simple Living in the 21st century: Part 3 – Some Principles and Some Examples

Published by Thainamu September 28, 2007 in General. 4 Comments

Two weeks ago I defined a simple life as “a lifestyle that consciously and intentionally chooses to consume less.” Last week, I talked about a biblical basis for simplicity. This week’s article will give some practical things to try if you want to live more simply.

Richard Foster, whom I referred to last week, gives ten principles, paraphrased here:

  1. Buy things based on their usefulness, not their status.
  2. Reject anything that produces an addiction in you.
  3. Give stuff away. De-accumulate.
  4. Beware time saving gadgets.
  5. Enjoy things without owning them.
  6. Develop a deep appreciation for God’s creation.
  7. Be skeptical of “buy now, pay later.”
  8. Use plain and honest speech.
  9. Reject anything that breeds oppression of others.
  10. Shun things that distract you from seeking first the Kingdom of God.

Below are some further ideas for simple living I’ve gathered up.

Simple Goods

  • Lower your standards—just a little. Is it all that important to have the newest, fanciest, and shiniest one of everything?
  • Buy it on sale.
  • Buy it used. Sell it used. You’ll spend less money and end up with less junk cluttering up your living space.
  • Look for a way to use something you already have to meet a new need. It is fun to solve problems by re-purposing stuff you already have. Think Apollo 13 .
  • Borrow and lend stuff to your neighbors. Some things are used so seldom that sharing makes sense.
  • Use up what you’ve already got before buying more, especially with food, and you’ll end up wasting less.
  • Shopping hints—never go grocery shopping while hungry. Combine several errands into one trip, even if it means writing down an itinerary.
  • Use the public library, including interlibrary loan, instead of buying books.

Simple Services

  • Look for a simpler way to do X. Consider edging the sidewalk with hand tools instead of buying another polluting machine to do it.
  • Do it yourself—house and car repairs, for example. Cook more meals from scratch instead of buying prepackaged or going out.
  • Learn some practical skills so you can do it yourself. If the outlay for tools isn’t prohibitive, you can learn things like changing oil and cutting hair. The internet is full of “how to” guides.
  • Join a coop—babysitting, vegetable, etc. Save money and make some friends at the same time.
  • Take advantage of the internet and phone to save errands. Have your paycheck direct deposited and bills directly debited.
  • Enlist the help of family and friends for big jobs. Treat them to homemade pizza after they help you paint your living room.
  • Find some friends or family to play soccer/dance/swim/walk with instead of paying for a health club membership.

A Tip of the Hat to Mommy
Many young mothers are especially skilled at implementing the simple lifestyle. Those who stay home with kids instead of bringing income in from an outside job often turn to frugality as a way to stretch the family income. They do a great job and post all their clever ideas on their blogs which are gathered together in places like this and this. Before we had blogs, there were women who wrote their examples of saving money into newsletters and books.

The Down Side—Time, Tools, Skills vs. Money
One reason people buy machines and hire people is to save time (other times it is for lack of skill). People who are willing to live the simple life have to admit there is sometimes a trade off between spending money and spending time. For example, if you are going to change the oil in your own car or grow your own vegetables, you have to have certain things: a place to work, the correct tools, a certain skill set, and a certain amount of time. A person who wants to live a simple life will need to weigh the options and figure out if it is feasible for him to gain the skills, acquire the tools, and use the time to do things for himself rather than paying someone else to do them. In some cases the answer will be no. In other cases, it will be an enriching opportunity to learn a new skill, engage the family in a new activity, or turn a hobby into a fruitful benefit.

Next week I plan to finish off this series with a look at some examples of appropriate technology—taking “simple” to a new level.

Internet Buzz is Irrelevant

Published by Kenneth Martens September 27, 2007 in General and Politics. 96 Comments

According to a Fox News online poll [It was actually a cellphone poll. - Ed.] earlier this month, Representative Ron Paul won the New Hampshire Republican debate by a significant margin (Ron Paul wins by a landslide). Unfortunately for Ron Paul enthusiasts, that support has not translated into big numbers on the offline polls. A September 7-8 Gallup poll put Ron Paul at the bottom of the field with 1% support. Subsequent polls show a similar level of insignificance.

Why does Ron Paul poll so well online but not elsewhere? Rush Limbaugh says it’s because of small number of his supporters are spamming the online polls (May 16 transcript) and that Paul’s buzz isn’t real.

But it’s not just Ron Paul. Other candidates are seeing the same pattern: huge online support, but dismal showings in scientific polls. In a New York Times op-ed piece (The Center Holds) David Brooks reports:

In the various polls on the Daily Kos Web site, John Edwards, Barack Obama and even Al Gore crush Hillary Clinton, who limps in with 2 percent to 10 percent of the vote.

But in the scientific polls, Hillary Clinton is polling nearly double the numbers of her nearest competitor. Gallup has her support at 47% compared to Obama’s 25% (Sept. 14-16 poll). Unless every candidate except for Clinton has supporters spamming the online polls, we can’t chalk this phenomenon up to online chicanery. Something else is happening.

David Brooks offers one explanation in his New York Times piece:

As the journalist Ron Brownstein and others have noted, Democratic primary contests follow a general pattern. There are a few candidates who represent the affluent, educated intelligentsia (Eugene McCarthy, Bill Bradley) and they usually end up getting beaten by the candidate of the less educated, lower middle class.

That’s what’s happening again. Obama and Edwards get most of their support from the educated, affluent liberals. According to Gallup polls, Obama garners 33 percent support from Democratic college graduates, 28 percent from those with some college and only 19 percent with a high school degree or less. Hillary Clinton’s core support, on the other hand, comes from those with less education and less income — more Harry Truman than Howard Dean.

Brooks’s unsaid assumption is that the internet activists are better educated and wealthier than the general public. If we assume this is true, then the skewed online polls are just another manifestation of an ongoing class divide in America. The real divide is between the wealthy and the lower middle class. Ron Paul’s online dominance is not due to libertarian crackpots stuffing the internet ballots. It is an effect of the fact that internet users are not a representative cross-section of America. It’s only the wealthier folks who support Ron Paul.

Or so Brooks’s article leads you to believe. But does his unsaid assumption fit the facts? Do internet users in America represent the “affluent, educated intelligentsia?” A 2006 Pew report shows that 73% of American adults are online. (Internet Penetration and Impact) The report shows that income and education did play a factor–53% of adults making less than $30,000 were online compared to 86% of adults making $50,000 to $75,000. But the report also shows that age is an even greater indicator: 88% of 18-29 year-olds are online compared to 32% for those 65 and older. It’s possible that the overrepresentation of Ron Paul supporters on the internet is a result of a new generation with new values. If that is the case–and I caution that it is by no means proved–then we can expect political shifts in the next few decades as this young generation matures.

But for now, the internet is irrelevant.

Questions from a Skeptic

Published by Darius September 26, 2007 in General, Religion and Emerging Church. 30 Comments

Considering that the emerging church movement (EC) is a popular topic on this blog and that the articles written thus far have not appeared to be critical of or even acknowledge some of the more questionable aspects of the EC, I felt that for my first (and maybe last, depending on how this goes) guest article, I would address some of my perceptions of the weaknesses of the EC. If I am unnecessarily hard on the EC (hopefully that is not the case), it is partly because I wish to balance those who are unnecessarily easy on it. If I get another opportunity to post on here, I hope to share a review of D.A. Carson’s book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church.

Until then, and without any mention of he who shall not be named in fear of political spammers (nope, I’m not referring to Alan Keyes)… here is a video of Solomon’s Porch, one of the premier emerging churches in the country, located in Minneapolis. Presumably, this video was filmed and edited by Solomon’s Porch (SP from now on) members with the intention that all that is shown is representative of SP’s beliefs and church structure.

Since the video mostly entails short snippets of quotes from different members of the church (including Doug Pagitt, its leader and founder), it is difficult for a viewer to do much more than “read between the lines” of what is said. With that in mind, I have decided that the best way to begin a discussion of the potential worries I have with SP (and other ECs) is to pose some questions in response to what is heard on the video.

We just knew that the way that we had done Christianity all of our lives was no longer a viable option anymore. - Unidentified man

Why was your Christianity not viable? And if this new way is no longer “viable” and is biblically-justifiable, shouldn’t this apply to all Christians? If so, why? If not, what makes it right for SP but not the rest of the Church?

Solomon’s Porch began in Jan. 2000 and it’s a church… - Pagitt

What is your definition of a “church” (in particular, in the context used here, the small “c” version)? And what should be the ultimate goal and “target audience” of a church? I would say that a Christian “church” is a gathering of believers in Jesus that allows for fellowship, teaching from the Scriptures, and worship of the Triune God. Thus, the goal would be to facilitate the abovementioned functions with a “target audience” of Christ-confessing believers.

Ultimately, community that is Christian needs to be a community of love. - Pagitt

I concur. However, how do you define love? Is it defined as only encouraging, “nice” behavior toward others or does love also involve reproach, Godly criticism, and correction?

For example, there is no statement of belief at this church or statement of faith. There is not like a set-in-stone theological writing that everyone in this church has to adhere to. Because everyone does have different ideas and all of those ideas are important and valued. It is very cooperative that way.” - Unidentified woman

A statement of faith is probably not always necessary, but having no theological beliefs to which to hold is preferable?? Does this mean that not every member of Solomon’s Porch has to adhere to the Bible and its teachings? Or what about the cardinal Christian doctrines, like the inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Jesus, and the atonement (to name a few)? Also, what if someone has a wrong idea about God? Why is that valued? How does this compare to the Bible’s constant teaching that there is no place in the church for wrong ideas about God (Titus 1, 2 John 1:10, etc.), implying that not all “ideas are important and valued.”

Things run into far more trouble when there is a strong authority structure because they always go bad. Look at government, the history of governments, the history of countries, look at the history of monarchies, you look at the history of the church. The larger and more powerful and dominant the structure is, the more deeply flawed it will become… Okay, so our community meets in the round, so we face each other. And if we say we believe that people matter and that the spirit of God moves in people, that there is no person that has a privileged place to speak about God in our community over anyone else, that everyone has the right to speak for God, then we should try to level the structure and the playing field as much as possible so that can happen. - Pagitt

It would seem that in protesting strong authority, you have neglected the inherent problems of a weak authority structure and the fact that many New Testament apostles specifically set up authority structures to defend against false teaching and to strengthen the congregation. How do you defend against heresy or weak theology at SP with supposedly no authority structure? What if someone stands up and says that Jesus didn’t really die as a ransom for our sins; rather, He died to give us a perfect example of love. Or if someone claims that the Trinity doesn’t exist? Is there someone who will speak loving correction to those errors? Or is it left to each person to figure out for him or herself what is true?

How does everyone having “the right to speak for God” jive with what the Word says in Romans about everyone in the Body having different gifts? After all, some are given the gift to teach, and have been trained in and studied the Bible at length, while others are gifted in other ways and have not done the type of study necessary to teach the Scriptures to others. Where in Scripture do you find support for this anti-authority ideal?

Early on, people got together and said, “Hey, should we do communion?” Yeah, let’s do communion. How should we do communion? I’ve heard the kingdom of God is supposed to be like a house party, so let’s do communion like a house party. - Unidentified man

When you “do communion,” where is the focus? Is it primarily on the community of believers or is it on Christ and His sacrifice?

All that hokie “What Would Jesus Do” stuff came from a very good spot. If Jesus were walking in the flesh, if this has been the time that he had been incarnated, what would be the issues that would be on his plate? I believe that you better bet it would be racism, and it would be environment, and it would be globalization, and it would be feeding the masses, and it would be these sorts of things. - Unidentified woman

Where does repentance of sins and worship of a holy God fall? Sixth, seventh? Ok, perhaps I’m being too harsh. But I am definitely sensing a pattern here where the primary aspects of the gospel are being ignored or pushed aside for the peripheral. As for the issues listed, what Biblical text lends you to believe that they would be significant to Jesus? After all, Jesus didn’t even bother to mention fighting against slavery, and were that still going on today, don’t you think that would be more important than protecting the environment? Instead, Jesus seemed to focus on repentance (Mark 1:15), caring for the downtrodden on an individual level, following God with your heart, etc.

I see the Bible changing, I don’t see it as stagnant. So for us as a community of Christians to say you need to believe this one thing and hold it tightly and make sure it is never questioned. That’s a real waste of energy with all things we could be doing in the world. - Unidentified woman

To me this is the silliest and possibly most troubling quote in the video. Two things. One, why is the Bible changing now when it seemed to not be changing when Jesus walked the earth? After all, didn’t Jesus constantly refer back to thousand-year-old Scriptures to correct people? Did Jesus think they were changing? Perhaps I misunderstand; what exactly about the Bible is changing? Second, here we are again, protesting an exaggeration of the truth and not understanding what the Scriptures teach. After all, didn’t Jesus spend a monumental amount of his energy correcting people’s wrong ideas and making sure that they believed correctly? Does not Titus 1:11 say that false teachers “must be silenced”? Or 2 John 1:10 inform us that we are not to welcome false teachers into our homes?

We deal injustice happening around us and within us. It’s that sense of entering into the mess and being okay with the fact that we’re pretty screwed up in actuality. - Unidentified woman

At what point do we leave the mess behind as a community of believers and “be perfect as [our] heavenly Father is perfect?”

I have no agenda to grow and convince people of things that they don’t want to be convinced of. That seems to be the least gracious, kind, and loving thing you can do; to go disturb someone who chooses not to be disturbed. I think places like ours are maybe hope-producing for people who are already disturbed and hope that there is another option. - Pagitt

Perhaps something else was meant here, but isn’t this the EXACT OPPOSITE of the gospel? By this definition, wasn’t Jesus very ungracious, unkind, and unloving when he told the rich young ruler that he had to sell all of his possessions to make it to heaven? After all, the young man obviously didn’t want to be convinced of that. Would you say that your church is more for pre-Christians who want to dabble on the edges of Christianity, trying it out for a season before deciding whether or not to stay with that religion, instead of Christians who are looking to grow deeper in their walk with the Lord?

I am genuinely interested in answers to these questions. Hopefully, via the comment section, this can initiate some good discussion regarding this article and video. Ultimately, my interest is not to aim “friendly fire” onto fellow believers, but that Jesus and His holy Word would prevail.

Do You Need A Spiritual Makeover?

Published by Sadie September 25, 2007 in General and Religion. 8 Comments

Christians are supposed to be walking in the footsteps of Christ. Have you stopped recently to consider if you need a spiritual makeover? Journalist A.J. Jacobs took it to the extreme. Newsweek recently published an interview in which Jacobs expounds on his year-long commitment to following all biblical rules and statues. Interestingly, Jacobs reports that he enjoyed his experience and even misses it:

I miss my sin-free life, but I guess I was never sin free. I was able to cut down on my coveting maybe 40 percent, but I was still a coveter. Flat-screen TVs, the front yard of my friend in the suburbs, a better cell phone, higher Amazon rankings. And that’s not to mention coveting my neighbor’s wife. I live in New York, I work in publishing, so there’s a lot of coveting, lying and gossiping.

Isn’t it interesting that Jacobs admits despite the best of his abilities (obviously he was dedicated) he could not cut sin out of his life? To live as Christ, to live a sin free life is impossible. A spiritual make-over is more than just “being good” as Jacobs puts it.

So what does a real spiritual make-over entail? In Ephesians 5, Paul provides a great heart-check section for believers. Among which he exhorts Christians to:

  • And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma. (Eph. 5:2)
  • Find out what is acceptable to the Lord. (Eph. 5: 10)
  • Walk circumspectly, wisely, and redeem the time. (Eph 5:15-16)
  • Understand the will of the Lord (Eph 5: 17)
  • Speak to one another is psalms, spiritual hymns and songs (Eph 5: 19)
  • Give thanks in Christ to God always for all things (Ephs 5: 20)
  • Submit to one another in fear of God (Eph 5: 21)
  • Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord (Eph 5: 22)
  • Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25)

This spiritual list shows the biblical way to be imitators of Christ, and is built upon the premise that one must first accept God’s sacrifice on their behalf. The Christian spiritual makeover, the truly biblical life, begins with a radical world view change that no matter how hard you try, you cannot be good according to God’s standards.

Emerging Impulses: Community

Published by Jasen Tracy September 24, 2007 in Religion and Emerging Church. 10 Comments

Emerging churches tend to place a high value on community. For the many dictionary enthusiasts, I’ll point out that it is definition 3b I’m using: “Sharing, participation, and fellowship.” According to Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger in their book, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Communities in Postmodern Cultures -

Emerging churches destroy the Christendom idea that church is a place, a meeting or a time. Church is a way of life, a rhythm, a community, a movement.

Emerging Church types recognize that it’s not possible to live a true Christian life apart from sharing life with a group of people who are seeking to live in the way of Jesus. Emerging churches often meet in small groups, not only to have Bible study and prayer, but also to just spend time together in general.

Small groups are not new to the American church scene, and not all emerging churches have them. However, Emerging churches tend to have small groups more often and place more emphasis on them than other churches do, often to the point that it’s in the small groups where “church” really takes place. This demonstrates the trend in some Emerging churches to de-emphasize the importance of the Sunday morning service (the center, if not the sole, event of many churches). This is done in order to focus more on other events throughout the week, such as the previously mentioned small groups and activities that seek to connect the church with the non-believing communities they find themselves in.

Community is not just something that is merely surface level, but it seeks to be authentic, allowing people to be honest and open about themselves and the problems they are facing. In some churches, especially those influenced by prosperity “gospel,” people find this difficult to do. Emerging churches highly value this type of transparency.

This sense of community is not merely important for the sake of the people of the church, but it is also the best witness to the non-believing world. As Lesslie Newbigin put it:

How is it possible that the gospel should be credible, that people should come to believe that the power which has the last word in human affairs is represented by a man hanging on a cross? I am suggesting that the only answer, the only hermeneutic of the gospel, is a congregation of men and women who believe it and live by it.

Simple Living in the 21st Century: Part 2 – A Theology of Simple Living

Published by Thainamu September 21, 2007 in General. 12 Comments

Last week I defined simple living as “a lifestyle that consciously and intentionally chooses to consume less than one could.” There may be any number of noble reasons to live this way (environmental, eschewing the rat race, issues of social justice, or just to stay out of debt), but I want to look at the simple lifestyle from the viewpoint of being a believer. Should believing the Bible and being a Christian affect one’s lifestyle?

The Discipline of Simplicity
During a formative period in my Christian life, I read a book by Richard J. Foster entitled Celebration of Discipline where he discusses the ancient church disciplines and how they might be practiced in modern life. He divides the disciplines into three categories;

  • inward (meditation, prayer, fasting, study)
  • outward (simplicity, solitude, submission, service)
  • corporate (confession, worship, guidance, celebration)

His chapter on the outward discipline of simplicity is where a number of my thoughts found their start. He actually calls simplicity “an inward reality that results in an outward lifestyle,” emphasizing the point that what is in one’s heart is more important than any specific manifestation of simplicity. Further, to have an outward simplicity for no sake other than its own is to fall into deadly legalism.

Jesus Talks Money
So what does the Bible say about simplicity? To start with, Jesus says a lot about money! Money is not a taboo topic in scripture as it sometimes is in Christian circles (I use the word “money,” but read it in the more general sense of “all the stuff money can buy”). A few examples:

The Bible also says quite a bit about our attitude toward money and the things it can buy:

If I lived a life completely in obedience to all that scripture says, I would automatically be living “the simple life.” Money wouldn’t control me, whether I had “too much” of it or “too little” of it, because my heart would be on seeking the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all the things I need would be taken care of.

Voluntary Poverty
Voluntary poverty is like simple living, but more so. There is no way to measure it in absolute terms. If a multimillionaire gives away 90% and lives on 10%, he still wouldn’t exactly be in poverty but he’d be a lot poorer than he could be (is that story about R. G. LeTourneau true?). The point is that some believers intentionally live on the barest minimum they can in order to give their resources for Christian service. I don’t know too many people who do this, and that would be the point—I wouldn’t know about them if they were doing it right. I have nothing but admiration for people who make that choice and live out it out with joy — I love a cheerful giver too! Anyone interested in this topic should take a look at the writings of Ron Sider, especially Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger.

No Praise from the Prosperity Gospel Preachers or the Press
If we choose a simple lifestyle we may encounter opposition from some fellow Christians. I see my position on simple living as pretty much in opposition to the prosperity gospel - not so much in what the adherents’ respective bank accounts look like, but more what their hearts look like. I don’t believe God owes us anything except to “meet our needs” and “never leave us or forsake us.” Yes, he does also speak of giving us “abundant life,” but I interpret that to mean inward abundance, not necessarily material wealth.

We may even have our patriotism questioned! One minute ago I heard on the radio news, “The feds have just dropped the key interest rate by half a percent in an attempt to get Americans spending again.” Sometimes it seems we might be hurting America if we don’t spend as much money as we could!

A Disturbing Test of Principles

Published by Colin September 20, 2007 in General. 82 Comments

We engaged in a great discussion a couple weeks ago on the topic of homosexuality. The general consensus arrived at was that homosexual behavior is sinful (regardless of whether it is biological or chosen), at the same time, a separation was made between homosexual “inclinations” and homosexual behavior. One common anecdote to support this view is that a person may be predisposed to alcoholism, but as long as he refrains from drinking, he keeps his propensity to sin in check. Likewise, a person may have homosexual leanings, but as long as that person refuses to engage in such behavior and entertain such a lifestyle, they are keeping themselves from sin.

We now have an opportunity to test the principle behind this conclusion. Jack McClellan, self-described pedophile, has never engaged in sexual activity with a child. However, he declares that he is prone to sexual thoughts and he has strong feelings towards young girls. If it weren’t for the laws against it, he would engage in “consensual” relationships with young girls including sexual relationships. According to McClellen (warning: link may be offensive to some):

…I developed an attraction to prepubescent girls (which I believe was in my subconscious all my adult life), and have decided to act on it while I still look young enough to be perceived as father-age rather than grandfather-age to such girls. There is an element of sexual excitement to this attraction, but I’m determined not to cross the line into sexual touching because I don’t consider it worth the risk–and would be satisfied with hugs, cuddling, hair-stroking, etc. Indeed, I enjoy just hanging around young girls, and am getting my fix every weekend at local fairs and festivals. Watching these girls frolic while I’m high on psychedelic plants blows away all the idiocy, hypocrisy, and conformity of adult society for me–and I’m going to keep pushing that button for as long as it works.

McClellen has now chosen to move to my state of Oregon, where he believes that people are more tolerant and open to his views. He maintains that, while having a predisposition to being sexually attracted to young girls, he is not going to act on these desires. This has not stopped local media and concerned parents from doing their best to keep him away from their children.

While homosexuality has now become perfectly acceptable in society, pedophelia has not (despite efforts to legitimize it). It remains to be seen whether separating sin into “behavior” and “thoughts” will still hold true when being thrust onto a such an unsavory subject. The media has already taken it upon themselves to shame this man, will it - in a spectacular irony - be Christians who defend him?

Nietzsche & Morality?

Published by cchrisr September 19, 2007 in Religion. 16 Comments

(I am pausing from the “Faith Problems” series until I can digest the next area sufficiently. In the meanwhile, I’ll be toying with different parts of Nietzsche’s works.)

It seems that many Christians claim morality. In some case, they even brag about it. Yet, this seems to be a disservice to . Why is it that Christians today seem to “play moral” without actually living it? I believe actually has insight into this. But, we must first disregard any prejudices of Nietzsche because, oftentimes, those are based on misconceptions. Instead of going through each prejudice and explaining the point of misconception, it’ll be easier to remove them all and deal with them later.

Nietzsche writes in his preface to The Birth of Tragedy that “Christian teaching…is, and wants to be, only moral and … relegates art, every art to the realm of lies” (BT, 5*). This can be expanded further. I believe Nietzsche is missing one point when it comes to American Evangelicals: most of them want to be seen as being moral, even if it is not the case. The media has given us numerous examples of popular preachers, pastors, etc, all caught in one scandal or another, sometimes in the very thing they preach most strongly against. This is no coincidence. Christians today in America want to display morality even if they lack it.

Humility
Let us take an example that I see frequently: humility. Christians want to be humble. This is not a bad thing (perhaps not what Nietzsche saw as the best goal, but not “wrong”). Yet Christians today, especially those in America, seem to enjoy displaying their lack of humility.

For example, one person I know is a technophile. He loves gadgets and has very expensive toys all over his house. But yet he claims at church groups to be humble. If one were to walk into his house, devoid of any context from him, I believe the exact opposite would be thought. “Simple, humble” people do not tend to live extravagantly, especially to the excess that he does and on the small budget he has. To drive this point home even further, another author here (Thainamu) recently posted a beginning to a series called “Simple Living in the 21st Century.” Just as simple living is a lifestyle and not just a display, so is moral living.

To bring this back to Nietzsche once more, the extravagant living can be associated with the Dionysian** trend. The Dionysian is marked by extreme excess. It is contrasted by the Apollinian (some translators write Apollonian) which is marked by tempered control. Neither can live without the other because one must have an encounter with the excess of the Dionysian in order to harness it in the Apollinian. This is where the practical nature of simple living and morality is born.

* Most of Nietzsche’s work is divided into aphorisms. It is common practice to refer to the aphorism, rather than the page number, because it is the same regardless of translation.

** Later works of Nietzsche redefine Dionysian as something else, which becomes for Nietzsche the highest valuation of life.

Changing Church: Part 4

Published by Bryan September 18, 2007 in General and Emerging Church. 4 Comments

This is part 4 of a series yet undetermined in length.

With Protestant evangelical churches’ historical animosity toward church history, there are few resources to help those who are trying to bring older practices into today’s churches. This is particularly true in free churches (Baptist, E-Free, Pentecostal…) that do not have a set liturgy. Churches that have come out of the magisterial reformation (Anglican, Reformed and Lutheran) and kept the liturgy (although modified for each denomination) have part of the historical church passed down in their liturgy week after week. The liturgy provides a common reference point, a kind of living memory for a church from which a connection with the historical past can be emphasized and explored. In churches without a liturgy and a general a-historic view of the church it can be difficult to find a way to begin to explore the past with the church community.

The one resource that most churches, even free churches, have to use is church creeds. No matter what denomination, nearly everyone will agree with what is said in the Apostles and Nicaea Creed. There are some exceptions here, the Church of Christ (and some others smaller groups) do not use creeds, there is disagreement on Christ descending into Hell and the Filioque clause with the orthodox church, but the these two creeds come the closest to being catholic (in the universal sense) documents that the church today has.

When churches and denominations recognize the authority and truthfulness of these creeds, they are often doing so out of a sense of tradition - or only because they wish to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy and recognize somehow that is set by these creeds. Most churches and denominations within the free churches have not given much thought as to why they use, or at least recognize these creeds, which provides an amazing chance for a church to begin an investigation of the history of the church.

We have, in our churches, examples of how scripture and tradition have historically interacted with each other in the church that are waiting to be investigated and explored. Among Emerging Churches, Dan Kimball seems to take the creeds the most seriously. In his chapter in Listening To The Beliefs Of The Emerging Church he spends a lot of time discussing what their role in the church should be. He seems to understand what I have been saying here; that they are a doorway that we can use to enter into the past, but more importantly are the bounds of orthodoxy. Kimball represents the emerging church at its best on this point.

There are many resources available to churches wanting to begin an investigation of the creeds. With the internet, documents such as Philip Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom and other writings on the creeds are available to everyone. There is also a newer book by D.H. Williams entitled Evangelicals and Tradition, which, among other things, discusses the formation of the creeds and is an important book which I hope to review in full at a later date.

Emerging Impulses: Experimental

Published by Jasen Tracy September 17, 2007 in Religion and Emerging Church. 26 Comments

The Why
As covered last week, some in the Emerging Church have looked back to Church history to form worship styles differing from American Evangelicalism. Others have chosen to experiment with new practices instead (although it’s important to note that these two impulses aren’t mutually exclusive).

The motivation for experimenting with worship practices comes from the ideas that everything good can be a means with which to worship God (a complete rejection of the regulative principle), and that the means of worship should reflect the talents and interests of the church community. Bob Hyatt, the leader of an Emerging church plant in Portland, Oregon, when faced the question of what his new church would be like, said, “I have no earthly idea.” Hyatt expounds on this:

If a bunch of cloggers … showed up, we’d be the clogging church. If a bunch of skate punks showed up, we’d be the skate church. I wasn’t out to niche target-market our community, and so felt great freedom to just sit back and watch what happened. I still feel that freedom…

The What
Dance, drama, and painting, are some of the more common “experimental” practices found in Emerging churches (as well as other types of churches). A more unique idea is that of stations, which are small areas setup for people to go to during the service. There they can do various things, such as pray, journal, meditate, or an artistic activity. This shows an interesting combination of the experimental and historical impulses.

Perhaps some of the most important innovations have come in regard to the act of preaching. Some use relative minor changes such as preaching from the middle of the congregation, or perhaps sitting down so as to be on the same level as everyone else.

Others are making bigger changes, having grown dissatisfied with how preaching is done. They allege that that the monologue format is flawed method and that the overuse of it can damage a church. For example, a preacher can become seen as the sole person with the authority to speak on Biblical matters, and the rest of the church could grow complacent in their own study (and pick up other negatives resulting from acting as an audience).

Doug Pagitt, an Emerging Church leader in Minneapolis, has referred to the monologue style as “speaching,” and recommends instead a “progressional dialogue.” This opens the sermon to questions and input from the congregation, possibly leading to a more impactful service and one that lives up to the idea of the priesthood of all believers.

Archives

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for the month September, 2007.

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for the month September, 2007.

September 2007
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for the month September, 2007.