Tracydanger

The pendulum swing in the last quarter century (from my perspective) has headed toward the apex of “grace” as opposed to “Hell, fire & brimstone.” Not such a bad thing, right?

Of course, we can’t forget the idea, “What shall we say then? Shall we go on sinning all the more? By no means!” but with our human-ness it is hard not to separate actions from consequence. This works both ways. Not only that it’s hard to accept that even though we sin, we can be in God’s good grace (certainly by definition, if we didn’t sin, we wouldn’t need grace), but it is also hard to connect that if we’re forgiven of sin, we still need to keep from sinning. I guess the word for feeling like we’re free to sin while in grace is licentiousness.

So the question I had on the way to work this morning was, “How do we emotionally reconcile the idea of grace with the fact that it’s not OK to be bad?”

I just received a "Census" in the mail from the Republican National Committee. If you also received one, I hope you didn't bother to fill it out or to send money. I opted instead to send this letter back in the enclosed, postage-paid envelope:

Dear Fellow Republican,

I am a 30 year old male. I am quite conservative fiscally and socially. I am almost finished with a PhD.

I saw this Republican Party Census Document as a sad and thinly veiled way to raise money. At the most it was a way to convince people of what they should believe, but mainly it seemed obvious, with the biased language used, that you expected people to answer “yes” to most questions.

To preface the “census” with a letter that used phrases like “ gun grabbers” was not civilized. I actually agree with most every sentiment in the letter, but it insults my intelligence for it to be presented in this manner. If you had simply asked for money to help the republican cause, I would’ve been more likely to donate, but I won’t support an effort like this.

A question [on the survey] like “Should republicans in Congress oppose the new wasteful government spending programs proposed by the Democrats and their leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?” sounds more like a smear tactic than an honest question.

This doesn’t make me like the Republican National Committee more.

-Tracy Hall

That pretty much states how I felt about the mailing I received. I wonder how others that got this reacted to it.

It seems that boys have an innate desire to build things and then destroy them. Think about how fun it is to build up blocks and then bust them down. Trying to build a tower as tall as you can and then bust through it. Setting up dominoes to see them fall, those fake bricks used to build a house and then tear through it. Link-n-logs, Jenga blocks, Legos, etc. Just think how many times you've watched a kid (usually boys) do that very thing. Some even grow up to work in demolition and what guy doesn't think it's cool to watch a video of a giant building being blown up? Like some big casino in Las Vegas. Of course, buildings like that are torn down to make room for something bigger and better.

Time travel back to when God ordained the building of the temple. How magnificent was that? Nothing has ever compared to it's majesty. The great care taken to make it. No noise made at the building site, intricate detail, gold-lined everything, etc.

We should be able to identify with such a powerful message/illustration when, first, the curtain was torn and then ultimately, the temple (not to mention the Jewish system and all it had been built up to be) was destroyed in 70 AD. What a dramatic spectacle to usher in the new House. What a great way to let all the world know that they too can have a relationship with God and be saved by grace through faith, no longer bound by the law (Gal 2).

Would anyone else like having podcasts of the different talks at Truthvoice? There is a podcast from a conference called TED Talks that I've found enjoyable, which makes me wish there were some from Truthvoice. It'd be cool if there were podcasts posted once a week or so including past conferences. It would probably end up drawing more people to future conferences and it'd be a great tool for people wanting to share there eschatological views. Also, for everyone that went to one session in one room and didn't want to miss the session from the other room - they could just catch it on the web later. I'm sure it would make it to #1 on the iTunes podcast charts.

Laying in bed the other night, I decided something.

I don't think that robots will ever take over the world.
My reasoning?

Computers are predictable.
Humans are unpredictable.

I could go into a more detailed explanation, but I think that this is what it ultimately comes down to.

Your thoughts?

I just thought about something recently.

Do you think you could take a broken egg and make it whole again? Even with your skill as a human, you'd have a hard time and it wouldn't look the same afterwards anyway.

Now, what if you were a horse. Just hooves. No fingers or opposable thumbs. Probably not very good hoof-eye coordination. Would it be any wonder that you couldn't complete that task? Of course not. Not even if you were a horse of royalty.

So is it any wonder that all the kings horses (along with all the kings men) couldn't put humpty dumpty back together again? Why even mention it in the first place?

Here are some more thoughts responding to comments from my earlier blog about inviting sinners to champion the cause of Christ instead of championing the cause of sinners. After reading several comments, I wanted to make the following response. Humourusly enough I was spam blocked from my own blog, so I had to make a separate entry.

Christians get criticized for putting homosexuality in a separate category. Remember there is the idea of homosexuality and also homosexual acts. A tendency (for whatever reason) or temptation is not sinful. A recovering alcoholic, not getting drunk, labeling himself/herself an alcoholic is different than someone saying that there is nothing wrong with getting plastered every night. The reason homosexuality is treated different is when someone gay or lesbian says that there is nothing wrong with it (i.e. openly living in sin). That's it (not that I'm saying anything new). Someone openly living with an affair or having premarital sex should be treated the same as someone doing homosexual acts or openly living in any sin. Somehow, we don't mind accepting sexual sin as much as long as it's heterosexual.

I've had several gay friends. I loved and accepted them. I didn't encourage that lifestyle. According to much of the mental health field, simply because I believe homosexual acts are a sin, I'm a "homophobic" - which is flat wrong. A homophobic is someone deathly afraid to be close to a homosexual for fear that, for instance, they may turn homosexual themselves. In today's climate, simply not being tolerant enough equals homophobic.

In response to another comment. 'We gotta get them in the door'. Not that I disagree, but my first reaction was - 'I gotta get out there'. People aren't a piece of dough that need to be thrown in the oven for 30 minutes on 350 degrees. Suggesting to someone (and/or inviting them) that they attend Sunday morning worship (hoping that they'll get their act together as a result) is wholly different than being involved in their lives - on a regular basis.

I sin plenty in my life. I don't consider myself better than anyone else. I only hope that I recognize sin, call it what it is, and try not to do it - relying on God's grace. According to many, that is enough to be labeled a homophobe.

I know the discussion of postmodernism could get very long I just want to mention one particular issue.

I usually don't like discussions of modern/postmodern philosophy. I often feel that people seem pretentious when talking about it (which is judgmental on my part - actually it seems that most people using the word pretentious seem pretentious - specifically because they're using the word pretentious - but I digress).

In discussions of postmodernism and the church I usually had a metaphorical bad taste in my mouth and never quite knew why. I just realized recently what it was.

It seems that it is unbeknownst to lots of younger Christians that discuss postmodernism that much of that philosophy is tied to the idea of no absolute truth. I hear people talking about how this generation has a postmodern philosophy and we essentially need to embrace that. I think the way to word it is that 'we need to embrace the fact that there are many people coming from that perspective and if we approach them from another perspective without that knowledge, then we'll be talking to the wind'.

There are many ideas inline with postmodernism that I agree with - such as the fact that I learn much better in a discussion oriented class than I do in a lecture. I just want to make sure that people discussing postmodernism and the church have a decent background for the term. Below this article I copied and pasted sections from Wikipedia about Social Constructionism and Social Constructivism to give a glimpse of the thought world of this subject. If I understand correctly (from my study in grad school - not from the excerpts below), one says that there is no absolute truth and all knowledge is socially constructed, whereas the other states that there is an absolute truth but we cannot know it absolutely because of our human limitations and, in a sense, we live in the world we create. I agree with the latter of these two perspectives. I believe in absolute truth. I also believe that if I tell myself, "It's gonna be a crappy day," then, in fact, it will be a crappy day.

I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts about this. I know there is a lot more to know about modernism/postmodernism/etc. than I know. Feel free to read the excerpts below, and since they're from Wikipedia, feel free to take them with a grain or two of salt.

Social Constructionism:
Socially constructed reality is seen as an ongoing, dynamic process; reality is re-produced by people acting on their interpretations and their knowledge of it. Berger and Luckmann argue that all knowledge, including the most basic, taken-for-granted common sense knowledge of everyday reality, is derived from and maintained by social interactions. When people interact, they do so with the understanding that their respective perceptions of reality are related, and as they act upon this understanding their common knowledge of reality becomes reinforced. Since this common sense knowledge is negotiated by people, human typifications, significations and institutions come to be presented as part of an objective reality. It is in this sense that it can be said that reality is socially constructed.

Within social constructionist thought, a social construction (social construct) is an idea which may appear to be natural and obvious to those who accept it, but in reality is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society. The implication is that social constructs are in some sense human choices rather than laws resulting from divine will or nature. This is not usually taken to imply a radical anti-determinism, however. [citation needed]

Social constructionism is dialectically opposed to essentialism, the belief that there are defining transhistorical essences independent of conscious beings that determine the categorical structure of reality. The specific mechanisms underlying Berger and Luckmann's notion of social construction are discussed further in social construction.


Social Constructivism:
Constructivism is a recent development in philosophy which criticizes essentialism, whether it is in the form of medieval realism, classical rationalism, or empiricism. It originated in sociology under the term social constructionism and has been given the name constructivism when referring to philosophical epistemology, though constructionism and constructivism are often used interchangeably.

Constructivism views all of our knowledge as "constructed", because it does not necessarily reflect any external "transcendent" realities; it is contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender are socially constructed (Hegel, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of social determinism).

There seems to be a movement in the church today related to tolerance/acceptance of certain groups of people - and sinners in general.

I agree wholeheartedly with the line of thinking that Jesus spent much time with sinners and it is legalistic to shun or avoid people because of the sin in their lives. But something hit me the other day:

There is a big difference between

1. Championing the cause of sinners

and

2. Inviting sinners to champion the cause of Christ

We need to focus on the latter.

I’ve talked to many individuals that have, themselves, been turned off by a church or have family or friends that were burned by a church experience. Many, if not all of these times it has to do with human error. One aspect that I will not discuss in this article is that, sometimes, the recipient of a message (i.e. the one that is turned off) receive the message improperly. This commentary relates to the times that the fault mainly lies with the sender of the message(s).
At its base, the point herein is that what God designed (the church) is good and something that helps encourage us. We don’t always practice it to that end. The three main aspects that I would like to address are 1) the problem of hypocrisy 2) the problem of institutionalism and 3) the problem of the Pharisee. Keep in mind throughout this discussion that I generalize. I know there are myriad exceptions.

Hypocrisy
We as humans, have some basic needs. Two that relate to this topic are one, for people to acknowledge our existence, and two, for people to like and appreciate us. In trying to meet those needs for ourselves (which is the wrong approach), we try to hide our faults and look perfect to others. Being Christian and teaching or preaching to others, we say things like, “You shouldn’t lie to people.” Add to that the fact that we are imperfect and sometimes we lie. Right there, you have the formula for a hypocrite – someone that does what he or she tells others not to do.
To remedy this we must bring in the component of confession. Consider if someone said, “You shouldn’t lie to people. Now, let me tell you. I struggle with lying and I try not to. With God’s help I’ll get better at being honest.” Now, if someone heard that message and then saw the individual lie a week later, they are not going to point a finger and pronounce them a hypocrite.

Institutionalism
Many people talk about and complain that the church is (pick your adjective) too formal, too traditional, too inflexible, too legalistic, too religious, too ‘not the way I want it’. Often, when I hear these complaints, people will reference good experiences they have had in a more intimate setting than during a Sunday morning worship service (i.e. small group, prayer group, a service club in college, etc.) basically saying that it was like Acts 2:44ff. “We were really in each other’s lives and served others, etc… Now THAT was church!”
It dawned on me one day that much of this phenomenon comes down to a matter of size. This so-called “problem” was actually the nature of the beast. The interactions and emotional connectedness we so deeply desire are best manifested in a small, informal setting. If your idea of church is something you do four times a month or on holidays that you check off of your to do list or as part of your penance to be in God’s good graces, then forget about experiencing Acts 2:44ff.
I had a professor in my master’s program tell us about a study with some startling figures. The essence of the study results were that out of all the people attending church, about 10% of those ever did things with other church members out side of the formal church/worship setting. Out of that, about 10% of those ever did anything with other members away from the church building. From that pool, only 10% ever discussed things related to their Christian life in those settings. How sad that so many have not tapped into such a powerful and blessed part of life – what God designed for us to be lifted up and encouraged.
Let’s get back to the idea of size and the style of interaction between people. The level of formality is directly proportional to the size of the gathering. It’s not appropriate for someone to use a lapel microphone and a 10,000-watt sound system, standing on a stage, and using PowerPoint with spot lights when there four people in the audience. Conversely, there are more appropriate times for someone to spill their detailed guts about the problem they’ve been having with pornography than in an auditorium of 300+ men, women, & children. Don’t get me wrong; I am not opposed to public confession and do not mean to condemn it. As a side note, when someone gets up Sunday morning during the invitation and says, “I’ve sinned,” my reaction is, “Of course! I could have told you that. We all sin. Tell me something new.” In my life, I’ve found the most powerful confession to be in a regularly occurring, purposeful, small, intimate setting with specific confessions. For instance, “I got upset with my wife last Thursday because she wouldn’t listen right when I wanted and I told her she was selfish. Now I see that I was being selfish.” Vs “I’m a sinner.”
Again, getting back on track: much of the complaining I’ve heard describes what occurs in the formal worship on Sunday morning (including the 10 minutes before and after). “People are so fake. You ask how they’re doing and they say, ‘fine’ and act like the perfect little Christians and like they don’t have problems.” Or, “People ask you how you are and don’t really care. They just walk off.” Like I stated earlier, it’s about what is appropriate. “How are you?” on a Sunday morning two minutes before church starts is actually another form of “Hello.” If you want to remedy the problem, understand that, don’t get offended, and only ask “How are you” to others when you want to know and when they have time to answer. Put your hand on their shoulder, cock your head to the side and emphasize the “are” in “How are you?” Otherwise, just say, “Hi.”
If you have a problem with how formal, traditional, fake or inflexible the church is, then be different. Ask not what the church can do for you, but what you can do for God and how you can serve others.

Pharisee
A third phenomenon I see people uneasy with is basically the problem of the Pharisee. It seems that we as humans inherently have a difficult time with the concepts of grace and mercy. We can say in our heads that God is forgiving, but I is another thing altogether to feel it in our hearts. Because of this, we try to earn our salvation by guilting ourselves into goodness. We either focus on doing right, not doing wrong, or some of both. That’s not all bad, but truly, all we can do is live and thrive under grace. The wonderful thing about being imperfect is that all we can do is our best. Doing good should be motivated by an appreciation for God’s goodness, not as a means to earn salvation. If we were good enough to earn God’s grace, we wouldn’t need it.
Once we start down the path of focusing on doing right, not doing wrong and earning salvation, we eventually end up putting this burden on others. We create rules and laws that may be inline with scripture, but are not scripture. Thus, we end up with creeds and Pharisees and the belief that you will go to hell if you use instruments in worship. This process can be found in any congregation and any denomination and/or non-denomination and at any point throughout history. Every once in a while, there will be a grand scale wakeup call (e.g. Jesus rebuking the Pharisees, Martin Luther’s Theses, etc.), but then human nature gets back into the picture, because, well…we’re human. Then the cycle starts all over. All we can do to combat this is focus on what God wants (i.e. Glorifying Him; loving him with our heart, soul, mind; loving and serving others; doing justly, loving mercy, walking humbly with Him; Having a thankful heart and a broken and contrite spirit – but that’s all for another article).
So many people have been hurt or turned off of church by preachers, church leaders, church members or the church as a whole. They often then declare church as flawed and bad. Taking all of these thoughts into consideration, it seems off the mark to tell someone that they need to go to church because the Bible says so and they’re just lazy or bad.
God designed and created church. What he made was good. We, with our human flaws don’t execute the design perfectly. Just look and how broken and split the church is as a whole and compare that to Jesus’ desire that ‘they may all be one.’
Maybe we could “do church” better if we were in the Word more. If a father tries putting a swing set together minus the instructions, the chance of success is not as great. We need to read God’s instruction manual on how to be towards one another.

Conclusion
If you read this and had the reaction, “Yes, we need to make sure and do church correctly and get it all right.” You’ve missed the point. That heads toward the Pharisee’s thought process. We can’t get it all right. God knows that. We can only live in His grace and try to Glorify Him as best we can. Just keep these ideas in mind and when someone seems turned off by church, look deeper.