Tonight, I ended up at home because of some bad weather. So, I decided to write another blog entry. I have, as of late, been pondering something I read from a recent book, Death by Love by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears. In that book, God is described as the world’s greatest victim. We live in a society where everyone seems to be a victim, but very few people, to my knowledge have focused on this in terms of God.
Everyone wants their pound of flesh when wronged, but people all seem to want out easy from prior debts or wrongs. Criminals ask for pardons and parole, former students ask for student loans to be waived (http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/mar2009/bs20090323_558993.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis), and leaders in industries of all types ask to be bailed out. When it is someone else’s problem, we think failure is OK; but, when it applies to us, we want an easy way out.
To me, this applies to our nature as humans relating to God. Diedrich Bonhoeffer warned Christians about the perils of cheap grace in his book The Cost of Discipleship. We want to live a happy life and not worry about the burden of sin or how it affects God because forgiveness is like a piece of Pez candy. You just keep on popping the dispenser to get more. It is so easy to miss that God is being hurt in this relationship. The grace He gives was not purchased at a “cheap” price and should not be treated as a commodity.
I am as guilty of this as any person. This portion of Death by Love really reached out and made me pause. The next time I complain about someone wronging me or something unfair, I truly should focus on my relationship with God. How fair am I being to the world’s greatest victim?
Friday, March 27, 2009
Friday, January 2, 2009
My Impression of Velvet Elvis
Rob Bell is quite the controversial person in Christian circles. He is a very popular pastor and author with many, yet some people believe that many of his teachings are borderline heretical. In order to better understand this man, I decided to read his first published book, which is Velvet Elvis.
Velvet Elvis is divided into seven chapters, which the author calls “movements.” Each of these “movements” is fairly self-contained, which leads to the easy use of them in a Bible Study or book club format. Each “movement” centers around a personal story Mr. Bell has experienced, and it allows for the audience to interact with the book in a more personal fashion. I found his writing style to be very entertaining with his use of analogies and stories like the aforementioned ones. Unlike many books pertaining to aspects of theology and doctrine, the book was not boring and dry.
Mr. Bell describes the book that asks Christians to question their beliefs as part of a journey process. I personally believe that a person should have his/her own faith through experience and introspection and should not have a faith because of family roots or social acquaintances. Still, he does raise questions without answers and, to some extent, takes some liberty with Scripture.
There are two instances in the book which gave me pause from a doctrinal standpoint. One occurred on page 26, in which he described how faith should be strong enough to survive someone digging up proof that the Bible was incorrect. The example Mr. Bell used was a hypothetical situation in which archaeological evidence is found in which Jesus Christ had a human father. This flies in the face of the prophecy of the Old Testament and the Gospels of the New Testament. This example seemed like a poor choice to point out that faith should overcome finding out new discoveries about the Bible being “wrong.” I personally believe in an infallible God and that His Word is not incorrect in any way, shape, or form. If the foundation of my salvation, Jesus Christ, is repainted as being all man and not all man and all God, then my faith would be shattered irreparably.
The other instance is in the portion of the text below:
"Jesus at one point claimed to be 'the way, the truth, and the life'. Jesus was not making claims about one religion being better than all other religions. That completely misses the point, the depth, and the truth. Rather, he was telling those who were following him that his way is the way to the depth of reality. This kind of life Jesus was living, perfectly and completely in connection and cooperation with God, is the best possible way for a person to live. It is how things are" (Page 21).
This sounds like it makes sense until one looks at the complete Scripture Mr. Bell was referencing, which is John 14:5-14. Here is the Scripture from the New International Version of the Bible:
Jesus the Way to the Father
5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it (John 14:5-14 – New International Version).
When one looks at the complete Scripture, Jesus is clearly talking about himself as the way, the truth, and the life to salvation. He clearly was saying that only through Him and not other sources could one truly be saved. Surely, the New Testament has many stories where Jesus taught people how to live. The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:2-12) is a classic example of this. Still, Jesus was not trying to make some universal statement about how good people who do good things and follow a certain “way” are all good with Him. No, they are only good with God if they believe in Jesus Christ and accept his free gift of salvation.
Beyond these two major differences, I found much to like, especially in the latter half of the book. One page 168, I loved how he described a church as being powerful when it stands up to a pervasive culture which runs counter to God’s teaching. Mr. Bell is at his best when discusses how a church should focus on standing up for God while having empathy for others. Many people focus on one of the two at the expense of the other; an effective Christian needs both of these in liberal measures. He is also correct in stating that Christians need to wrestle with God’s Word, like Jacob, and understand it for ourselves. I just wish he would not take tangents that stop at the precipice of heresy to highlight his points. In the end, it is a wonderfully written call to arms for Christians to better understand their faith; but the people who wrestle with the Word like Mr. Bell asks will quickly see the flaws in his examples.
Velvet Elvis is divided into seven chapters, which the author calls “movements.” Each of these “movements” is fairly self-contained, which leads to the easy use of them in a Bible Study or book club format. Each “movement” centers around a personal story Mr. Bell has experienced, and it allows for the audience to interact with the book in a more personal fashion. I found his writing style to be very entertaining with his use of analogies and stories like the aforementioned ones. Unlike many books pertaining to aspects of theology and doctrine, the book was not boring and dry.
Mr. Bell describes the book that asks Christians to question their beliefs as part of a journey process. I personally believe that a person should have his/her own faith through experience and introspection and should not have a faith because of family roots or social acquaintances. Still, he does raise questions without answers and, to some extent, takes some liberty with Scripture.
There are two instances in the book which gave me pause from a doctrinal standpoint. One occurred on page 26, in which he described how faith should be strong enough to survive someone digging up proof that the Bible was incorrect. The example Mr. Bell used was a hypothetical situation in which archaeological evidence is found in which Jesus Christ had a human father. This flies in the face of the prophecy of the Old Testament and the Gospels of the New Testament. This example seemed like a poor choice to point out that faith should overcome finding out new discoveries about the Bible being “wrong.” I personally believe in an infallible God and that His Word is not incorrect in any way, shape, or form. If the foundation of my salvation, Jesus Christ, is repainted as being all man and not all man and all God, then my faith would be shattered irreparably.
The other instance is in the portion of the text below:
"Jesus at one point claimed to be 'the way, the truth, and the life'. Jesus was not making claims about one religion being better than all other religions. That completely misses the point, the depth, and the truth. Rather, he was telling those who were following him that his way is the way to the depth of reality. This kind of life Jesus was living, perfectly and completely in connection and cooperation with God, is the best possible way for a person to live. It is how things are" (Page 21).
This sounds like it makes sense until one looks at the complete Scripture Mr. Bell was referencing, which is John 14:5-14. Here is the Scripture from the New International Version of the Bible:
Jesus the Way to the Father
5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it (John 14:5-14 – New International Version).
When one looks at the complete Scripture, Jesus is clearly talking about himself as the way, the truth, and the life to salvation. He clearly was saying that only through Him and not other sources could one truly be saved. Surely, the New Testament has many stories where Jesus taught people how to live. The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:2-12) is a classic example of this. Still, Jesus was not trying to make some universal statement about how good people who do good things and follow a certain “way” are all good with Him. No, they are only good with God if they believe in Jesus Christ and accept his free gift of salvation.
Beyond these two major differences, I found much to like, especially in the latter half of the book. One page 168, I loved how he described a church as being powerful when it stands up to a pervasive culture which runs counter to God’s teaching. Mr. Bell is at his best when discusses how a church should focus on standing up for God while having empathy for others. Many people focus on one of the two at the expense of the other; an effective Christian needs both of these in liberal measures. He is also correct in stating that Christians need to wrestle with God’s Word, like Jacob, and understand it for ourselves. I just wish he would not take tangents that stop at the precipice of heresy to highlight his points. In the end, it is a wonderfully written call to arms for Christians to better understand their faith; but the people who wrestle with the Word like Mr. Bell asks will quickly see the flaws in his examples.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Yes, I am proud to be an American.
Times must be hard for poets, really. Instead of reading and reciting poetry, many people read the latest bestsellers by J. K. Rowling, Stephenie Meyer, and James Patterson. I am not a huge fan of poetry, but I have a respect for it as I had a very traditional K-12 education. To get into the news, it seems like a poet has to cause some kind of controversy.
At the center of a relatively new but old controversy is Maya Angelou. Ms. Angelou is a poet who has links to the American Civil Rights Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Angelou). Probably the moment most Americans remember seeing her was during her recitation of her poem “On the Pulse of Morning” at Bill Clinton’s inauguration in 1993. Since then, many people probably have not heard as much about her, but she has popped up again in the midst of something I read about a month ago.
Ms. Angelou made the following comment after Senator Obama was elected:
ANGELOU: I realized almost within a minute, I don't have to apologize for my country when I'm abroad. I can say, "I belong to a great country," and there are Europeans who say, "Aren't you glad to be here in France where we don't have the racism you live under? Aren't you glad you're here in Britain?" I mean, I've been on the defensive so long. But this time I can say, "I am an American, look at us, look at what we've just achieved." It is amazing. (Source: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110708/content/01125113.guest.html)
This made me cringe that Americans were being made to feel as if we were such a racist country. Surely, our country is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I think that Europe has it no better in terms of race relations. This made me want to do some research on race relations in France and Britain to discover if there was any empirical or anecdotal evidence to refute Ms. Angelou’s experiences in Europe.
I decided to start with France. It is a long-established country. So, surely, it has fixed this racism problem and is setting the bar for us here. Sadly, this is not the case. The Associated Press had an article about how the first lady of France wants her country to be more progressive in its treatment of minorities and points out the fact that many minorities are invisible in politics (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/10/2008-11-10_bruni_says_its_time_to_eliminate_racism_.html). Time has even published an article about how racist dialogue is becoming more common in France (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1574817,00.html). NPR even had an article about how previous riots in immigrant communities in the country have been caused by racism as well (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5004897). Surely, France is a great country in all respects, but it also has not fixed the racism issue and is not a shining beacon of hope for us to aspire to.
Britain is the other country Ms. Angelou mentioned. Many of our customs and laws are based upon Britain’s because we used to be a colony of that country. At least that is the story until historical revisionists yet again try to change fact to suit their immediate needs. But, back to the diatribe at hand. In 2002, the BBC reported that racism is a problem in Britain and that 44% of citizens thought that immigration had damaged the country in the last 50 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2002/race/1998159.stm). The country also has a disparity in the success of minority groups when compared to whites (http://www.caribvoice.org/Features/racism.html). Surely, this cannot be the great example Ms. Angelou meant to imply?
Other European countries, like the Netherlands, have also had issues with racism; but that is a discussion for another day. Britain and France are great countries, and the USA is also a great country. I am proud to be an American. Equality is a good goal, but there are many different ways to achieve it. Britain, France, and the USA all are not perfect countries. We are all trying to make our homes better places. I just wish that more Americans like Ms. Angelou would get her facts straight before disparaging her home country.
At the center of a relatively new but old controversy is Maya Angelou. Ms. Angelou is a poet who has links to the American Civil Rights Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Angelou). Probably the moment most Americans remember seeing her was during her recitation of her poem “On the Pulse of Morning” at Bill Clinton’s inauguration in 1993. Since then, many people probably have not heard as much about her, but she has popped up again in the midst of something I read about a month ago.
Ms. Angelou made the following comment after Senator Obama was elected:
ANGELOU: I realized almost within a minute, I don't have to apologize for my country when I'm abroad. I can say, "I belong to a great country," and there are Europeans who say, "Aren't you glad to be here in France where we don't have the racism you live under? Aren't you glad you're here in Britain?" I mean, I've been on the defensive so long. But this time I can say, "I am an American, look at us, look at what we've just achieved." It is amazing. (Source: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110708/content/01125113.guest.html)
This made me cringe that Americans were being made to feel as if we were such a racist country. Surely, our country is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I think that Europe has it no better in terms of race relations. This made me want to do some research on race relations in France and Britain to discover if there was any empirical or anecdotal evidence to refute Ms. Angelou’s experiences in Europe.
I decided to start with France. It is a long-established country. So, surely, it has fixed this racism problem and is setting the bar for us here. Sadly, this is not the case. The Associated Press had an article about how the first lady of France wants her country to be more progressive in its treatment of minorities and points out the fact that many minorities are invisible in politics (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/10/2008-11-10_bruni_says_its_time_to_eliminate_racism_.html). Time has even published an article about how racist dialogue is becoming more common in France (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1574817,00.html). NPR even had an article about how previous riots in immigrant communities in the country have been caused by racism as well (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5004897). Surely, France is a great country in all respects, but it also has not fixed the racism issue and is not a shining beacon of hope for us to aspire to.
Britain is the other country Ms. Angelou mentioned. Many of our customs and laws are based upon Britain’s because we used to be a colony of that country. At least that is the story until historical revisionists yet again try to change fact to suit their immediate needs. But, back to the diatribe at hand. In 2002, the BBC reported that racism is a problem in Britain and that 44% of citizens thought that immigration had damaged the country in the last 50 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2002/race/1998159.stm). The country also has a disparity in the success of minority groups when compared to whites (http://www.caribvoice.org/Features/racism.html). Surely, this cannot be the great example Ms. Angelou meant to imply?
Other European countries, like the Netherlands, have also had issues with racism; but that is a discussion for another day. Britain and France are great countries, and the USA is also a great country. I am proud to be an American. Equality is a good goal, but there are many different ways to achieve it. Britain, France, and the USA all are not perfect countries. We are all trying to make our homes better places. I just wish that more Americans like Ms. Angelou would get her facts straight before disparaging her home country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
