Times and Dates
If one does the math, based on Keplers calculation that Christ was born in 7bc, and not the year 0, then (or any other number of calculations) we find that Jesus was crucified in the year 26AD. This is significant for us in understanding and proving the resurrection because it is indeed on that year that April 1 falls on the first day of the week, or Sunday. The other significant fact about that year is that Passsover was to start on March 14, but because of the way in which it interfered with two Sabbaths, the date was bumped so that it started ten days before the last sabbath of the month (which means it began on March 18th at Sundown, ending with the Passover meal on Thursday March 28th).
This is the same Thursday on which we as Christians celebrate Maundy Thursday or the last supper. The Crucifixion took place then on Friday March 29. Jesus was in the tomb for 40 hours according to the church tradition, which has him rising again on Sunday April 1. Quite the April fools joke if you ask me: Hey I'm not really dead!
Throughout history Jesus institution of April fools day has been diminished by hostile forces within the church, in favor of the old pagan tradition of fertility and "Easter." But even Paul says those who are Perishing find the gospel to be "foolishness" and "The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man."
Oh, and YouTube is deleting all our videos at midnight tonight!
Babylon and the desert of Sin
1 Peter 5:13
13
She [your sister church here] in Babylon, [who is] elect with [yourselves], sends you greetings, and [so does] my son Mark.
As I ponder the current state of the Roman Church, I think: If Peters Babylon was Rome, he sees those there as being in exile... If that is so he would never have intended to establish the central headquarters of the church "he was to build" there.
If however Peter meant something like "the persecuted church" or some kind of "realized eschatology" in his statement about Babylon, then Peter probably never went to Rome to establish any church...
She [your sister church here] in Babylon, [who is] elect with [yourselves], sends you greetings, and [so does] my son Mark.
As I ponder the current state of the Roman Church, I think: If Peters Babylon was Rome, he sees those there as being in exile... If that is so he would never have intended to establish the central headquarters of the church "he was to build" there.
If however Peter meant something like "the persecuted church" or some kind of "realized eschatology" in his statement about Babylon, then Peter probably never went to Rome to establish any church...
context to tragedy
Death doesn't bother me; sure loss isn't a picnic mourning represents a change within us, how will we go on? how will we survive? how will we fill that empty place in our lives that we had filled with the love both from and for the departed.
But when you think about it, mourning is more about us than it is about the departed. Few if any of us would express sorrow about where we believe our loved ones end up - sure we'll callously do it about someone else's loved ones, but when it comes down to our own, even the most hell-firey and brim-stoney among us lean universalist in praxis. Don't believe me? go to more funerals. The command to love your neighbor as yourself gets a real test when facing scenes of grief stricken loved ones searching for their own way to find meaning to their loss.*
Often when I do funerals, my own meditation drives me to ontological query. What does it mean to exist? Is existence real? Is existence merely a physical thing? Why do we who exist, spend the bulk of our "nows" re-living the past, and pre-living our futures? Is existence possible in either the past or future? Is existence limited to now? If we speak of now in this sense, it is really the "eternal now". If I exist now, then I exist in the eternal now. Neither death nor life then are of consequence to existence. How do I become fully present as an existent being in the eternal now?
When Jesus asked the question about the tower of Siloam in Luke 13, this seems to have been his point. We get caught up in words like "repent" and their connotation today; but what if repent is a call to live in the eternal now? Wasn't this the kind of "life" that Jesus offered; living water; abundant life; truth; light? The past is dim and dark, the future is cloudy, but right now we can be in the light, as he is in the light.
How then do you place context around tragedies? Is not the tragedy itself a chance for us to be present?
Why is it that two tragedies inspire him to talk about a fruit tree that has not yielded fruit in three years? Why does the vineyard keeper appeal for one more year on behalf of the tree, to prune and fertilize it so as to see it bear fruit? We look for someone or something to blame in a tragedy, but Jesus said that there was no point in that. We can spend lots of effort in pointless pursuits lobbying for or against gun control, stricter rules for schools, legislation mandating medications on the mentally ill, or making it easier to place them in institutions - none of which will prevent another tragedy.
When we can distance ourselves from the emotional fury caused by the scenes on the news, and when we can free our selves from fear of death, I can tell you the best way to prevent the next tragedy: When was the last time you reached out to someone who was troubled or emotionally unstable, or unlovely? When was the last time you asked; Who is my neighbor?
*[For those who would like to argue doctrine; watch your practice. For the few who are bold enough to condemn someone at a funeral it probably wouldn't help anyway to point to the doctrine of the keys.]
But when you think about it, mourning is more about us than it is about the departed. Few if any of us would express sorrow about where we believe our loved ones end up - sure we'll callously do it about someone else's loved ones, but when it comes down to our own, even the most hell-firey and brim-stoney among us lean universalist in praxis. Don't believe me? go to more funerals. The command to love your neighbor as yourself gets a real test when facing scenes of grief stricken loved ones searching for their own way to find meaning to their loss.*
Often when I do funerals, my own meditation drives me to ontological query. What does it mean to exist? Is existence real? Is existence merely a physical thing? Why do we who exist, spend the bulk of our "nows" re-living the past, and pre-living our futures? Is existence possible in either the past or future? Is existence limited to now? If we speak of now in this sense, it is really the "eternal now". If I exist now, then I exist in the eternal now. Neither death nor life then are of consequence to existence. How do I become fully present as an existent being in the eternal now?
When Jesus asked the question about the tower of Siloam in Luke 13, this seems to have been his point. We get caught up in words like "repent" and their connotation today; but what if repent is a call to live in the eternal now? Wasn't this the kind of "life" that Jesus offered; living water; abundant life; truth; light? The past is dim and dark, the future is cloudy, but right now we can be in the light, as he is in the light.
How then do you place context around tragedies? Is not the tragedy itself a chance for us to be present?
Why is it that two tragedies inspire him to talk about a fruit tree that has not yielded fruit in three years? Why does the vineyard keeper appeal for one more year on behalf of the tree, to prune and fertilize it so as to see it bear fruit? We look for someone or something to blame in a tragedy, but Jesus said that there was no point in that. We can spend lots of effort in pointless pursuits lobbying for or against gun control, stricter rules for schools, legislation mandating medications on the mentally ill, or making it easier to place them in institutions - none of which will prevent another tragedy.
When we can distance ourselves from the emotional fury caused by the scenes on the news, and when we can free our selves from fear of death, I can tell you the best way to prevent the next tragedy: When was the last time you reached out to someone who was troubled or emotionally unstable, or unlovely? When was the last time you asked; Who is my neighbor?
*[For those who would like to argue doctrine; watch your practice. For the few who are bold enough to condemn someone at a funeral it probably wouldn't help anyway to point to the doctrine of the keys.]
Windows 8 Start Button; aspects of change
Windows 8 is an interesting parallel/analogy in how we humans can dislike change. Seemingly minor things often get us out of sorts - maybe not upset, but it can confuse us. Perhaps I don't need a start menu? But my mind isn't ready to stop clicking on the lower left corner of the screen and opening whatever program is pinned to the task bar there.
Tactics of change are quite important. We often use logic like this: "It's just a small change, it's minor, why does it matter?" which isn't very empathetic, and sets us up for logic like this: "well if it's so small and minor, why can't I have it my way?" Maybe this is why the apocryphal story of Coca-Cola comes to mind. When they wanted to switch from cane sugar to corn syrup, they removed the product from the shelves completely, introducing "New Coke" only to bring back the slightly reformulated "Coca-Cola Classic" once we'd all had our taste adjusted to a different flavor. It was a major gamble to take; and in the end it paid off
At Church we often fall into the trap of the former logic. Somebody thinks the Pulpit should stay in the center of the platform, it's not a big thing why does it matter. Somebody else thinks the announcements should go in the middle of the service, it's not a big thing, why does it matter. Children in the service, Types of music, How the coffee is made, how much heat we use, whether we use a microphone... all little things, so why do they matter.
The fact is that for those affected they aren't little things - that's why downloads of "start button programs" for windows 8 are leading people to speculate that even Microsoft might bring them back (especially after firing their top man).
All this leaves me to ponder: Should I put a start button program on my computer? or should I adapt to the change?
Tactics of change are quite important. We often use logic like this: "It's just a small change, it's minor, why does it matter?" which isn't very empathetic, and sets us up for logic like this: "well if it's so small and minor, why can't I have it my way?" Maybe this is why the apocryphal story of Coca-Cola comes to mind. When they wanted to switch from cane sugar to corn syrup, they removed the product from the shelves completely, introducing "New Coke" only to bring back the slightly reformulated "Coca-Cola Classic" once we'd all had our taste adjusted to a different flavor. It was a major gamble to take; and in the end it paid off
At Church we often fall into the trap of the former logic. Somebody thinks the Pulpit should stay in the center of the platform, it's not a big thing why does it matter. Somebody else thinks the announcements should go in the middle of the service, it's not a big thing, why does it matter. Children in the service, Types of music, How the coffee is made, how much heat we use, whether we use a microphone... all little things, so why do they matter.
The fact is that for those affected they aren't little things - that's why downloads of "start button programs" for windows 8 are leading people to speculate that even Microsoft might bring them back (especially after firing their top man).
All this leaves me to ponder: Should I put a start button program on my computer? or should I adapt to the change?
History
History is replete with examples we could learn from, if we didn't simply chose to accept the easy explanation. Does Occam's razor apply to history? maybe so, but certainly there is a difference between the simplest path between two points, and the simplest way to understand the path between two points - and so we trip ourselves up on cosmetically altered notions of history.
One example: Why and where did the first modern universities spring up? Our cosmetically altered answer has something to do with the thirst for knowledge and the altruistic spirit of generous benefactors in renaissance Europe. The less cosmetically attractive history reads a long brutal history of crusades, which sent the land into economic hardship. The papal answer to this, was to no longer send armies but inquisitors to hunt heretics... but when the people revolted from even this heavy handed approach, it was figured that institutes of higher learning, if opened to laity could provide a uniformity of opinion and scholarship which served to prevent such heresies from arising in the first place. In a way Universities, and especially Seminaries are the bastard children of the Inquisition and Crusades.
Take such incestuous scholarship forward a few centuries, and people no longer remember nor take seriously major historical figures and their work, the blood of saints and martyrs, chalking such histories that survive as old wives tales. We call these times the "dark ages" without consideration for their cause. One clear cause is the attempt to impose a unifying faith on the masses as a means of subjecting them - with the corresponding emphasis on "orthodox" purity and brutal suppression of heterodoxy.
America has mastered this cosmetic alteration of history. The Boston Tea party was a respectable protest, George Washington was god like, The native Americans were small tribes of isolated peoples before Europeans came, and Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. It is possible to go on and on with this civic nonsense, or we could just witness the retelling of "facts" on the current campaign trail. Given some recent comments however about the importance of deciding the future of our country on the ground of deciding for or against free markets, I'd like to examine some of the glossed over history.
We think of the 1800's as a time of upheaval and conflict over the issue of slavery. We see the racial prejudice and brutality suffered by black people as rightly reprehensible. Toward the end of the war, they were set free by proclamation of the president - not due to his moral or ethical stance, but rather as a means to cause a further blow in this case to the economy of the rebellious south in order to ensure the surrender and unity of the nation. The Great Debate, as we have called it in our history books was all about the morality of holding people as slaves because of the color of their skin; but we never read the writings of southern scholars who posited that the confederacy, the war, the debate was really about the competition of two economic systems.
The truth is, as ugly as it may seem; it was. While abolitionists fought for the end to maltreatment of humans who are our brothers, many of their northern neighbors did just that, even worshiping together with a clear conscience absolved of guilt - for they held no slaves. And yet we do not see the dormitories in Lowell or the twelve and a half hour days worked by women and children with no safety equipment or protection or benefit in the event of injury or sickness or days off (except for Sunday which was strictly regulated as to what was permissible, church attendance was a term of employment). You see: in exchange for a paycheck, the owners of these factories were absolved of having any ethical obligation for their employees; Whereas in the south that ethical obligation stood, however compromised by the notion of property ownership.
Now the Republican party of the 1960's has changed it's tune. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who will openly accept the southern form of economics (and discrimination) but we do find politicians openly embracing the northern approach through their cunning use of phrases like "free markets" and "fair trade." We avoid this comparison due to respect for the many people of color who suffered under the repugnant economic system of the south - but we cannot afford to avert our eyes as Mitt Romney and the like advocate for neo-feudalism saying that it's somehow our fault that we, the 47% who supposedly don't pay taxes, don't earn enough money for the government to see it ethical or worthwhile to dip into our pockets and take what little money the working poor have earned; the sacrifice of the rich to cleanse their conscience from any sense of ethics. I could go on and on about the cult of money... but what about civic responsibility?
Do you know what the Magna Carta is Mr. Romney? Do you understand that the purpose of modern common law government is to restrain the "divine right" of a monarch who owned everything, and could take it away or give it wherever he pleased without any sense of obligation to a fellow man? Because if you do, you'll see that the right of a people to food and shelter as you so malign, is precisely the underpinnings of what we like to tout around the world as "the rule of law."
One example: Why and where did the first modern universities spring up? Our cosmetically altered answer has something to do with the thirst for knowledge and the altruistic spirit of generous benefactors in renaissance Europe. The less cosmetically attractive history reads a long brutal history of crusades, which sent the land into economic hardship. The papal answer to this, was to no longer send armies but inquisitors to hunt heretics... but when the people revolted from even this heavy handed approach, it was figured that institutes of higher learning, if opened to laity could provide a uniformity of opinion and scholarship which served to prevent such heresies from arising in the first place. In a way Universities, and especially Seminaries are the bastard children of the Inquisition and Crusades.
Take such incestuous scholarship forward a few centuries, and people no longer remember nor take seriously major historical figures and their work, the blood of saints and martyrs, chalking such histories that survive as old wives tales. We call these times the "dark ages" without consideration for their cause. One clear cause is the attempt to impose a unifying faith on the masses as a means of subjecting them - with the corresponding emphasis on "orthodox" purity and brutal suppression of heterodoxy.
America has mastered this cosmetic alteration of history. The Boston Tea party was a respectable protest, George Washington was god like, The native Americans were small tribes of isolated peoples before Europeans came, and Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. It is possible to go on and on with this civic nonsense, or we could just witness the retelling of "facts" on the current campaign trail. Given some recent comments however about the importance of deciding the future of our country on the ground of deciding for or against free markets, I'd like to examine some of the glossed over history.
We think of the 1800's as a time of upheaval and conflict over the issue of slavery. We see the racial prejudice and brutality suffered by black people as rightly reprehensible. Toward the end of the war, they were set free by proclamation of the president - not due to his moral or ethical stance, but rather as a means to cause a further blow in this case to the economy of the rebellious south in order to ensure the surrender and unity of the nation. The Great Debate, as we have called it in our history books was all about the morality of holding people as slaves because of the color of their skin; but we never read the writings of southern scholars who posited that the confederacy, the war, the debate was really about the competition of two economic systems.
The truth is, as ugly as it may seem; it was. While abolitionists fought for the end to maltreatment of humans who are our brothers, many of their northern neighbors did just that, even worshiping together with a clear conscience absolved of guilt - for they held no slaves. And yet we do not see the dormitories in Lowell or the twelve and a half hour days worked by women and children with no safety equipment or protection or benefit in the event of injury or sickness or days off (except for Sunday which was strictly regulated as to what was permissible, church attendance was a term of employment). You see: in exchange for a paycheck, the owners of these factories were absolved of having any ethical obligation for their employees; Whereas in the south that ethical obligation stood, however compromised by the notion of property ownership.
Now the Republican party of the 1960's has changed it's tune. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who will openly accept the southern form of economics (and discrimination) but we do find politicians openly embracing the northern approach through their cunning use of phrases like "free markets" and "fair trade." We avoid this comparison due to respect for the many people of color who suffered under the repugnant economic system of the south - but we cannot afford to avert our eyes as Mitt Romney and the like advocate for neo-feudalism saying that it's somehow our fault that we, the 47% who supposedly don't pay taxes, don't earn enough money for the government to see it ethical or worthwhile to dip into our pockets and take what little money the working poor have earned; the sacrifice of the rich to cleanse their conscience from any sense of ethics. I could go on and on about the cult of money... but what about civic responsibility?
Do you know what the Magna Carta is Mr. Romney? Do you understand that the purpose of modern common law government is to restrain the "divine right" of a monarch who owned everything, and could take it away or give it wherever he pleased without any sense of obligation to a fellow man? Because if you do, you'll see that the right of a people to food and shelter as you so malign, is precisely the underpinnings of what we like to tout around the world as "the rule of law."
Saint Leo Tolstoy
Banned in Russia, ignored by the West: Leo Tolstoy wrote what could be called a dissertation on the “An Introduction to a Criticism of Dogmatic Theology” where in he lays out a stunning critique of the post Nicene church, its theology, and its appropriation of Christ’s teaching. In “What I believe” he lays down what he believes to be the foundational doctrine of Christ (and God) “Do not resist evil.” It is a fascinating take, even if you disagree with his ultimate conclusion because he asks many of the same questions we ask today: Why has the church in such a concerted way refused to acknowledge any alternate interpretations of Christ teaching? Why are we so eager to participate in the sacraments, build edifices, and proselytize, and yet refuse to keep the command to turn the other cheek?
He adopts the word Anarchy, and yet his form of Anarchy is nothing like our current understanding: His idea is that by resisting evil, we are making judgments as to what is evil and what is good - thus participating in evil ourselves and perpetuating it. By refusing to participate in evil, by not resisting it, the world is changed.... He describes a world that looks much like what the early church looked like as a result of this. You can listen to the audio book for free from Librivox... good for in the car:
http://archive.org/details/whatibelieve_1101_librivox its about 230MB
He adopts the word Anarchy, and yet his form of Anarchy is nothing like our current understanding: His idea is that by resisting evil, we are making judgments as to what is evil and what is good - thus participating in evil ourselves and perpetuating it. By refusing to participate in evil, by not resisting it, the world is changed.... He describes a world that looks much like what the early church looked like as a result of this. You can listen to the audio book for free from Librivox... good for in the car:
http://archive.org/details/whatibelieve_1101_librivox its about 230MB
Gay Marriage or not
1 Timothhy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. (NIV)
This passage gives me pause, as I consider the current turmoil in the Church over the homosexual marriage issue. Many say this passage has nothing to do with homosexuality per se; and I agree. However the question it does raise is the interference of the Church in matters of personal living. Many people say that this passage is specifically dealing with the problem of asceticism, however I don't find that a valid argument when we consider the context, or the remainder of Paul's exhortation to Timothy. Here's why:
Immediately preceding this passage Paul gives the reason for his instruction: so that "you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." Again immediately following in verse 6 Paul tells Timothy that pointing this out will make him a good minister of Christ. Some will say that this still does not rule out asceticism, that the Gnostics were pushing a doctrine of material evil to which Paul is responding - but even if we choose to read this narrowly, we must also apply the principle that forbidding homosexual marriage is also a type of asceticism. Chastity has long been one of the key elements of asceticism, and so forbidding any type of marriage in this narrow view must be seen as an ascetic condemnation (since the Church also generally condemns sex outside of marriage).
Rather we must read this passage as a warning against taking sides in a popular discourse in which we are not guided by the Holy Spirit of God. Forcing people to take sides in the homosexual marriage debate, or a debate about meat sacrificed to idols is a side show, a distraction from how people generally must conduct themselves as members of God's household. Far worse, is the implication that doing so opens the door for the abandonment of faith, the seering of our conscience, and eventually demonic influence. David gives us a glimpse of the anguish of such an effect in Psalm 13:2 "How long must I wrestle with my thoughts and every day have sorrow in my heart?"
The problem of course is a resorting to a dead legalism rather than a living faith based on the grace of God. God's method of redemption is not a resistance of evil, but a self sacrificing, loving, offering of himself. Romans 1 of course gives us this warning more sternly: It is because we did not deem it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God we were given over to "shameful lusts..." the answer is not to become legalistic about the "shameful lusts" but to retain the knowledge of God.
This passage gives me pause, as I consider the current turmoil in the Church over the homosexual marriage issue. Many say this passage has nothing to do with homosexuality per se; and I agree. However the question it does raise is the interference of the Church in matters of personal living. Many people say that this passage is specifically dealing with the problem of asceticism, however I don't find that a valid argument when we consider the context, or the remainder of Paul's exhortation to Timothy. Here's why:
Immediately preceding this passage Paul gives the reason for his instruction: so that "you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." Again immediately following in verse 6 Paul tells Timothy that pointing this out will make him a good minister of Christ. Some will say that this still does not rule out asceticism, that the Gnostics were pushing a doctrine of material evil to which Paul is responding - but even if we choose to read this narrowly, we must also apply the principle that forbidding homosexual marriage is also a type of asceticism. Chastity has long been one of the key elements of asceticism, and so forbidding any type of marriage in this narrow view must be seen as an ascetic condemnation (since the Church also generally condemns sex outside of marriage).
Rather we must read this passage as a warning against taking sides in a popular discourse in which we are not guided by the Holy Spirit of God. Forcing people to take sides in the homosexual marriage debate, or a debate about meat sacrificed to idols is a side show, a distraction from how people generally must conduct themselves as members of God's household. Far worse, is the implication that doing so opens the door for the abandonment of faith, the seering of our conscience, and eventually demonic influence. David gives us a glimpse of the anguish of such an effect in Psalm 13:2 "How long must I wrestle with my thoughts and every day have sorrow in my heart?"
The problem of course is a resorting to a dead legalism rather than a living faith based on the grace of God. God's method of redemption is not a resistance of evil, but a self sacrificing, loving, offering of himself. Romans 1 of course gives us this warning more sternly: It is because we did not deem it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God we were given over to "shameful lusts..." the answer is not to become legalistic about the "shameful lusts" but to retain the knowledge of God.
Being a part of the conversation: A Primer
I've come across a number of people who have no idea what I'm talking about when I mention some of the more "relevant" subjects dealing with "progressive," "emerging," and alternative Christian faith. For any one who does not think it is relevant, just consider the Newsweek cover article from the week of Easter 2012 "Forget the Church follow Jesus." Everyone knows at least one person who is "Spiritual but not religious" - this is relevant.
So, although not exhaustive, I compiled a list of names, websites and resources that are helpful in familiarizing oneself with what is going on (it needs additions for sure, but here's my cursory attempt).
Patheos (patheos.com)
Huffington Post (religion column - huffingtonpost.com/religion)
Tony Jones (and his blog Theoblogy - tonyj.net)
Steve Knight (knightopia.com)
N.T. Wright
Barbara Butler Bass
Kurt Willems (Pangea blog)
Brad Brisco - (sentralizedgathering.com and missionalchurchnetwork.com)
Wild Goose Festival (wildgoosefestival.org)
Wikipedia article on "Emerging Church"
Tony Pappas (Executive minister at The American Baptists of Massachusetts)
Phillip K. Wyman (Founder and Pastor at "The Gathering" in Salem)
Sean Witty (Pastor at First Baptist Newton, MA)
Jim Powell (Weakchristian.wordpress.com)
Roger Thoman (Simple Church)
Books I'd recommend in order to have a fruitful conversation:
Born to Win (James and Jongeward)
The New Christians (Tony Jones)
A Generous Orthodoxy (Brian McLaren)
The Company of the Committed (Elton Trueblood)
The Apostolic Fathers (Lightfoot, Harmer, and Holmes)
No Place For Truth (David Wells)
Pagan Christianity (Frank Viola and George Barna)
Sacred Romance (John Eldredge and Brent Curtis)
A Little Exercise For Young Theologians (Helmut Thielicke)
So, although not exhaustive, I compiled a list of names, websites and resources that are helpful in familiarizing oneself with what is going on (it needs additions for sure, but here's my cursory attempt).
Patheos (patheos.com)
Huffington Post (religion column - huffingtonpost.com/religion)
Tony Jones (and his blog Theoblogy - tonyj.net)
Steve Knight (knightopia.com)
N.T. Wright
Barbara Butler Bass
Kurt Willems (Pangea blog)
Brad Brisco - (sentralizedgathering.com and missionalchurchnetwork.com)
Wild Goose Festival (wildgoosefestival.org)
Wikipedia article on "Emerging Church"
Tony Pappas (Executive minister at The American Baptists of Massachusetts)
Phillip K. Wyman (Founder and Pastor at "The Gathering" in Salem)
Sean Witty (Pastor at First Baptist Newton, MA)
Jim Powell (Weakchristian.wordpress.com)
Roger Thoman (Simple Church)
Books I'd recommend in order to have a fruitful conversation:
Born to Win (James and Jongeward)
The New Christians (Tony Jones)
A Generous Orthodoxy (Brian McLaren)
The Company of the Committed (Elton Trueblood)
The Apostolic Fathers (Lightfoot, Harmer, and Holmes)
No Place For Truth (David Wells)
Pagan Christianity (Frank Viola and George Barna)
Sacred Romance (John Eldredge and Brent Curtis)
A Little Exercise For Young Theologians (Helmut Thielicke)
Colbert and Tyson FTW
I guess I'm part of the generation that takes Stephen Colbert and John Stewart more seriously and CNN and Fox News - perhaps because they seem to actually care about the direction our society is going. Humor often is a way we humans deal with discomfort, like fourth graders giggling about puberty. This however is a terrific interview on the need to be inquisitive.
I love his comment about not letting the name fool you; dark matter, dark energy, Fred, Wilma... the thought crossed my mind that this is precisely how we often think about God - we let the name fool us. Further, I think there is a good argument in the statement that any technology sufficiently advanced will appear to be magic... I'd say that extends beyond mere technology to thought process and ideas as well - and I think too many people see God in this light.
As I think about the purpose of Church (apart from the religious agenda) I have come to the realization that its only legitimacy is found in two ways (and this applies to any religious institution): First (and kudos to Ed for his help coming up with this) is "Fostering community." The second one, I haven't made as neat and orderly but it is to help people make sense of the universe of which they are a part - helping them not attribute everything to magic/miracles/etc... Now this runs counter to what most people think religious community is supposed to do, because religious community usually doesn't do this -- but just as the technology for the A-bomb is neither good nor bad, it's what people have done with the power they have which is the problem.
In other words, the role of the church is analogous to this video in many ways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)