One of my favorite comedy routines is Jim Gaffigan talking about Christianity. I think you can find the routine on youtube or his website or something. Just Google it, why should I do all your detective work?! Or just take my word for it, it's hilarious.
In one of his bits, he talks about how things get immediately awkward whenever anyone brings up the topic of Jesus. Even the pope gets weirded out by it, he claims. "Easy fella, I keep work at work!"
I have definitely found this to be true in every case. There is something immediately awkward about any situation that "Jesus" is uttered as anything but a swear word. Why is this? As far as I know, there is no weird feeling in the room when discussion turns to Satan, Buddha, or even Muhammad.
Is it because "Jesus" immediately makes people recognize their failures, imperfections, and sins? Is it because the devil don' like it? Is it because "There's just something about that name?" Does the name, "Jesus" have magic voodoo powers?
More than anything, I lean toward the first option, especially in the North American culture of entitlement and self-esteem that says we're not perfect but we're really awesome and stuff and anything is in our power, regardless of who we are.
Maybe it's because the topic of Jesus is always tethered to the topic of hell. No small wonder, since Jesus never seems to resist an opportunity to talk about hell. In fact, he's really the only Bible character who talks about it at length. Kind of odd for the hippy, dress-wearing, pacifist, long-haired philosopher.
OK, so one, two, three: share your thoughts and comments on things being awkward when Jesus comes up in conversation. For instance: reading this blog...?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Sharing Jesus: True Hollywood Stories
Well, not "Hollywood" per se, but Kansas City doesn't have any exciting true stories of intrigue and suspense: that is, until now!!
I want to depart from the theoretical rights and wrongs of Christianity and describe some of my experiences in real, true, gritty, raw format. Excited yet? I know I am.
To begin, I confess that I am a horrible, horrible coward when it comes to talking about Jesus with other people. This is partly because I don't want to be made fun of and partly because I don't like revealing my passions to anyone: musical, artistic, design, love, sports teams, or whatever. I like to play everything close to my chest and remain mysteriously (and coolly) aloof from friendship and any level of intimacy.
The result? I have very few friends and a phobia of intimacy on many levels.
Anyhow, I'm sure you're not reading this to hear me complain about my social problems like a tweeny-bopper girl at a giggly slumber party. On to the titular concerns (that is, relating to the title, not what you're thinking!).
As strange as it may sound, there is a lot of difference in trying to explain and persuade to Christianity someone who is a divorced 50-year-old man and a late-twenties philosophy major. The first wants short, simple answers that I have a hard time giving because I tend to get logorrhea ("diarrhea of the mouth") and over explain all the junk behind how people arrive at simple conclusions. This, however, is a great method for the latter guy.
My point is, it is difficult to adapt effective speaking methods to different kinds of people. At times, it frustrates me, because it means that I have to put more time and energy into things.
Or . . . maybe I should just pray about it more and let the Holy Spirit do his job.
Anyway, it's a lot more fun to talk about Jesus and it's pretty wild not having all the answers to the hard questions of life. I've found that if it's too easy, it's probably wrong, but oh well.
Can anyone out there relate to this? Did everybody follow what I just said?
I want to depart from the theoretical rights and wrongs of Christianity and describe some of my experiences in real, true, gritty, raw format. Excited yet? I know I am.
To begin, I confess that I am a horrible, horrible coward when it comes to talking about Jesus with other people. This is partly because I don't want to be made fun of and partly because I don't like revealing my passions to anyone: musical, artistic, design, love, sports teams, or whatever. I like to play everything close to my chest and remain mysteriously (and coolly) aloof from friendship and any level of intimacy.
The result? I have very few friends and a phobia of intimacy on many levels.
Anyhow, I'm sure you're not reading this to hear me complain about my social problems like a tweeny-bopper girl at a giggly slumber party. On to the titular concerns (that is, relating to the title, not what you're thinking!).
As strange as it may sound, there is a lot of difference in trying to explain and persuade to Christianity someone who is a divorced 50-year-old man and a late-twenties philosophy major. The first wants short, simple answers that I have a hard time giving because I tend to get logorrhea ("diarrhea of the mouth") and over explain all the junk behind how people arrive at simple conclusions. This, however, is a great method for the latter guy.
My point is, it is difficult to adapt effective speaking methods to different kinds of people. At times, it frustrates me, because it means that I have to put more time and energy into things.
Or . . . maybe I should just pray about it more and let the Holy Spirit do his job.
Anyway, it's a lot more fun to talk about Jesus and it's pretty wild not having all the answers to the hard questions of life. I've found that if it's too easy, it's probably wrong, but oh well.
Can anyone out there relate to this? Did everybody follow what I just said?
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Legos and Leviticus
Well, to be honest, this post does not have much to do with Leviticus, but laws from God in general, and I just liked the alliteration, so I stand by my title.
Going through Matthew in our church, I am struck (probably purposefully by the author) by the competing philosophies of the Pharisees and Jesus. (sarcastically: "NNNOOOOOOOOO, REEEEAAAALLLY?!?!!?!).
This difference is especially noticeable vis a vis Sabbath laws. In historical Judaism (specifically after the exile) there were three main pillars of religious practice that were strictly emphasized in order to maintain distinction between the people of God and the "goyim": the Gentiles. These were Sabbath, diet, and circumcision (all found in Leviticus, and the title is referenced!).
Thus, when Jesus engages the establishment on Sabbath laws, he is treading some mighty rough water (or possibly walking on it, I guess?). But he makes a very striking point in one such meeting: he states that man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man.
To me, this line of reasoning sums up all of God's laws, Leviticus and otherwise, in that they are a gift to man for his benefit and not as a punishment. In this way, God's laws are like a parent giving his child a nice lego set.
What was that???
Yup, laws are like legos, though admittedly not as fun. The Pharisees wanted to ensure that the laws were kept to prove how much better they were than everyone else around them. In this way, they built their lego models, and displayed them proudly, yet they put them in fancy acrylic display cases fenced off with velvet ropes and made sure nobody touched them.
All the while, God's intention was for us to play with them, and also to invite others to share the fun with us. Now, to be sure, laws, like legos, are fragile and prone to breaking. But there is a difference between iconoclastic bashing and smashing of God's good gifts and breakage that happens in the course of normal play.
Naturally, God would not want people to smash his gifts to us, but neither would he want us to devote all our energies into keeping something so pristine and untouched that it is completely unenjoyable. Instead, we are called to enjoy God's gifts, to exercise good stewardship of them, and to invite others to enjoy them with us. We are not to use them to abuse and exclude people, and then to judge them for playing with inferior toys.
So what do you think? Is this a good analogy or not? Where does it break down? What scriptures support or deny this analogy? Am I being lazy in forcing readers to do my research for me?
And finally, does Mizzou have a chance in the NCAA Championship coming up?
Going through Matthew in our church, I am struck (probably purposefully by the author) by the competing philosophies of the Pharisees and Jesus. (sarcastically: "NNNOOOOOOOOO, REEEEAAAALLLY?!?!!?!).
This difference is especially noticeable vis a vis Sabbath laws. In historical Judaism (specifically after the exile) there were three main pillars of religious practice that were strictly emphasized in order to maintain distinction between the people of God and the "goyim": the Gentiles. These were Sabbath, diet, and circumcision (all found in Leviticus, and the title is referenced!).
Thus, when Jesus engages the establishment on Sabbath laws, he is treading some mighty rough water (or possibly walking on it, I guess?). But he makes a very striking point in one such meeting: he states that man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man.
To me, this line of reasoning sums up all of God's laws, Leviticus and otherwise, in that they are a gift to man for his benefit and not as a punishment. In this way, God's laws are like a parent giving his child a nice lego set.
What was that???
Yup, laws are like legos, though admittedly not as fun. The Pharisees wanted to ensure that the laws were kept to prove how much better they were than everyone else around them. In this way, they built their lego models, and displayed them proudly, yet they put them in fancy acrylic display cases fenced off with velvet ropes and made sure nobody touched them.
All the while, God's intention was for us to play with them, and also to invite others to share the fun with us. Now, to be sure, laws, like legos, are fragile and prone to breaking. But there is a difference between iconoclastic bashing and smashing of God's good gifts and breakage that happens in the course of normal play.
Naturally, God would not want people to smash his gifts to us, but neither would he want us to devote all our energies into keeping something so pristine and untouched that it is completely unenjoyable. Instead, we are called to enjoy God's gifts, to exercise good stewardship of them, and to invite others to enjoy them with us. We are not to use them to abuse and exclude people, and then to judge them for playing with inferior toys.
So what do you think? Is this a good analogy or not? Where does it break down? What scriptures support or deny this analogy? Am I being lazy in forcing readers to do my research for me?
And finally, does Mizzou have a chance in the NCAA Championship coming up?
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Cynicism and Preaching
Preaching has been coming into question over the past decade (more or less) with arguments like the shorter attention spans of the hearers, the inauthenticity of pretentious pastors, its inability to actually change lives, and various and sundry other arguments.
Proponents of preaching, cite biblical references, historical precedent, and start screaming louder and louder to drown out opposition. Yet they fail to seriously take into consideration the charges brought against them. (I am talking here of people I have heard defending preaching, such as John MacArthur and his cronies, and even Mark Driscoll).
I am a little tougher sell, though. I have blogged before about the danger of overusing the lecture format in church, and how it can be abused. This time, I want to try to sell preaching, but with different philosophical foundations behind its use and function.
First and foremost, let's face it, the gospel must presented orally at some point. Actions, pictures, songs, and attitudes are the backup singers: insufficient on their own, but when paired with the melody line, it creates a fuller, more beautiful experience and expression of the original idea.
The main problem I see to preaching is how to communicate truth to a society that is completely overrun with iconoclasm, sarcasm, cynicism, and skepticism, much like a medieval city overrun by rats and lice. How can one break through the wall of skepticism without demolishing the building?
I have a few solutions that are both difficult to describe and master, but must, I believe, be present.
To begin, as I learned in preaching class, the purpose of a sermon is NEVER knowledge. The purpose of every sermon is to connect people to the God of the universe, to lead them to the bridge between time and eternity, the God-man, Jesus. Confronted with the presence of God, people will then see who they are and be drawn to repent and motivated to do good and spurn evil.
This kind of preaching can only be achieved through prayer, because it is the power of the Holy Spirit, working in the hearts and minds and lives of the hearers. So preachers must pray, pray, pray.
Next, as a result of enlightenment philosophies of the past several hundred years, preaching has been replaced with cold, lifeless, abstract propositions, and has seen fit to leave behind the active, living, concrete metaphors and vivid word pictures. When you actually examine scripture, it is almost entirely made up of metaphor, story, song, and parable. Very little of the Bible is abstract or purely propositional in nature.
Certainly, propositions are made/implied by these vehicles of communication, but what service is done by taking the concrete and making it abstract and theoretical?
So we are to let the Bible speak on its own terms, and use parables and metaphor and figures of speech to engage the imagination of the hearer. And finally, we MUST know our audiences and take their objections seriously. We must listen to the questions they are asking, the concerns that they are raising, and reply humbly and sincerely.
The last point is my biggest disappointment in most preaching. The message has nothing to do with me, because none of my questions are raised and dealt with. Naturally, the preacher cannot deal with every objection possible, but the objections must be contemporary and should be real, not just the whim and imagination of what the preacher thinks an objector might sound.
Paul is the best example of raising objections to his own points. Books like Romans and Corinthians are brilliant examples of answering logical objections with real solutions. In writing, it's known as the "hypothetical interlocutor," but who cares! Put the people's real questions in your mouth. And preach Jesus.
I'll deal more with propositions in my next blog. This topic just ran away with me! Hooah!
Proponents of preaching, cite biblical references, historical precedent, and start screaming louder and louder to drown out opposition. Yet they fail to seriously take into consideration the charges brought against them. (I am talking here of people I have heard defending preaching, such as John MacArthur and his cronies, and even Mark Driscoll).
I am a little tougher sell, though. I have blogged before about the danger of overusing the lecture format in church, and how it can be abused. This time, I want to try to sell preaching, but with different philosophical foundations behind its use and function.
First and foremost, let's face it, the gospel must presented orally at some point. Actions, pictures, songs, and attitudes are the backup singers: insufficient on their own, but when paired with the melody line, it creates a fuller, more beautiful experience and expression of the original idea.
The main problem I see to preaching is how to communicate truth to a society that is completely overrun with iconoclasm, sarcasm, cynicism, and skepticism, much like a medieval city overrun by rats and lice. How can one break through the wall of skepticism without demolishing the building?
I have a few solutions that are both difficult to describe and master, but must, I believe, be present.
To begin, as I learned in preaching class, the purpose of a sermon is NEVER knowledge. The purpose of every sermon is to connect people to the God of the universe, to lead them to the bridge between time and eternity, the God-man, Jesus. Confronted with the presence of God, people will then see who they are and be drawn to repent and motivated to do good and spurn evil.
This kind of preaching can only be achieved through prayer, because it is the power of the Holy Spirit, working in the hearts and minds and lives of the hearers. So preachers must pray, pray, pray.
Next, as a result of enlightenment philosophies of the past several hundred years, preaching has been replaced with cold, lifeless, abstract propositions, and has seen fit to leave behind the active, living, concrete metaphors and vivid word pictures. When you actually examine scripture, it is almost entirely made up of metaphor, story, song, and parable. Very little of the Bible is abstract or purely propositional in nature.
Certainly, propositions are made/implied by these vehicles of communication, but what service is done by taking the concrete and making it abstract and theoretical?
So we are to let the Bible speak on its own terms, and use parables and metaphor and figures of speech to engage the imagination of the hearer. And finally, we MUST know our audiences and take their objections seriously. We must listen to the questions they are asking, the concerns that they are raising, and reply humbly and sincerely.
The last point is my biggest disappointment in most preaching. The message has nothing to do with me, because none of my questions are raised and dealt with. Naturally, the preacher cannot deal with every objection possible, but the objections must be contemporary and should be real, not just the whim and imagination of what the preacher thinks an objector might sound.
Paul is the best example of raising objections to his own points. Books like Romans and Corinthians are brilliant examples of answering logical objections with real solutions. In writing, it's known as the "hypothetical interlocutor," but who cares! Put the people's real questions in your mouth. And preach Jesus.
I'll deal more with propositions in my next blog. This topic just ran away with me! Hooah!
Friday, March 6, 2009
I don't usually like to blog about personal issues, but I suppose every rule has to have an exception. Today, my wife and I were preapproved for a mortgage, and have thus taken our first steps toward homeownership.
I am really excited! I am looking forward to shopping around, and picking out a place that will finally be "ours," with no hassles about damage, no worries about the people downstairs, and a backyard to relax in.
I would appreciate your prayers in this enormous undertaking for all the aspects, and just that the house won't collapse or catch on fire or something like that. At least not for a long long time.
I am also really really wanting a place in which to cultivate a community of faith--i.e., start a church, so I really want a place conducive to meeting, talking, hanging, and the occasional whatnot.
Plus I'd like to thank a historic recession/depression for low low house prices and historically low interest rates!
I am really excited! I am looking forward to shopping around, and picking out a place that will finally be "ours," with no hassles about damage, no worries about the people downstairs, and a backyard to relax in.
I would appreciate your prayers in this enormous undertaking for all the aspects, and just that the house won't collapse or catch on fire or something like that. At least not for a long long time.
I am also really really wanting a place in which to cultivate a community of faith--i.e., start a church, so I really want a place conducive to meeting, talking, hanging, and the occasional whatnot.
Plus I'd like to thank a historic recession/depression for low low house prices and historically low interest rates!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)