I listened to a radio program on 1210 am today where Mike Horton, a professor from Westminster, was complaining how the church doesn’t teach enough doctrine and theology. People don’t know what propitiation, justification, sanctification or atonement mean anymore. Instead we are always trying to translate the bible into everyday “real life” when the bible, doctrine and theology actually define real life.

I’m also reading this book Redeeming the Routines by Robert Banks where he says, “Doctrinal topics or broader social and political questions… tend to squeeze out more everyday concerns in study groups.” He also says, “Most Bible studies are of little help here. They tend to concentrate on the exposition of biblical books or on the discussion of theological themes.”  He goes on to talk about how pulpits have lost touch with the everyday lives and concerns of people… i.e. “real life.”

Not only does it seem like the two guys have totally different points of view, they also seem to have totally different ideas of what is actually taught in churches. But perhaps their points of view color what they think is actually taught in churches.

Photo by _StaR_DusT_

What is postmodern thought and how is it different from modern thought? That’s a huge question and rather than try to give a systematic answer to that question, I want to make an illustration or draw an analogy.

What is a memoir and what is an autobiography? What’s the difference? I think the difference between a memoir and autobiography closely parallels some of the differences between postmodernism and modernism.

I took a memoirs class in college where we had to learn about and read memoirs while writing our own memoirs. It was a very engaging class. I learned a lot about a lot of different classmates because we all had to read excerpts from our memoirs. I also read a lot of different books that I would never have thought to read.

In teaching us how to write our memoirs, the prof explained that we should not try to get the details completely accurate. We should not try to put down the events in chronological order. Some of the events may actually contradict each other. Sometimes the events do not make logical sense. The purpose of a memoir is not to give an accurate account of your life or a particular event in the past. The purpose of the memoir is to make meaning out of your own memories. Memoirs often focus on short periods of time and skip events.

An autobiography on the other hand is supposed to be a chronologically and historically correct account of your life. It should encompass most of the major events in your life. The autobiography should make logical sense to the reader.

[Read more]

photo by purticorico

none.

Absolutely none since it doesn’t give you any skills that you can use in the real world right?

I was a Literature and Writing major with a Writing emphasis. I often think about my education and what practical skills it has given me and has it aided me in getting a job? Am I any better off than a high school graduate? Should I have spent those years getting work experience instead? There are those colleges that espouse the benefits of a liberal arts education (here also)… but are they lies?

[Read more]

Its funny the way different communities work. They have their heros, hot topics, rules, abbreviations etc. One of the things that stand out is that every community has its heroes. These people are “famous” in their particular circle, but are nobodys in other circles. And it’s not just, “oh I know them.” No, it’s “WOW, OMG I’m talking to _____!!!!!!!” If you’re a part of the community, these heroes are every bit as famous as Britney Spears or President Bush. And the most interesting thing about these famous people is that they all know each other and are like best friends with each other. It’s like a “cool” crowd or “in-group.” I thought tHere are some examples:

The Counter-Strike Community
I remember clan members from certain high level clans were so respected and worshipped practically. Seeing a member of -si- or $ik was like WOW. We would watch the videos of X3 and listen to interviews from them and everything. We would go and get invited to be a part of a chatroom that had a couple -si- members and $ik ppl there and they would just chat and I wouldn’t say anything. I would just be like… WOW, I’m in awe!!! I remember when I found out [$ik]Rast was Brian Rast from high school, I thought… WOW… then I realized that hmm he wasn’t that WOW in high school. Maybe these people aren’t that cool.

[Read more]

This post is part of a series of posts. Be sure not to miss part 1, part 2, part 3, part4 and part 5.

Thank you everybody for participating in the discussion.

“The medium is the message.” What that means is that the content of a particular medium is not necessarily the most important thing. TV influences and changes our lives much more than the actual content of what comes through the TV. Thus the medium through which the content is presented, is just as important as the content itself.

Of course truth remains truth no matter what way it’s presented. But we’re talking about communication here. I don’t know how this conversation got sidetracked. The presentation doesn’t change the truth, but it changes “the truth that is being conveyed” or the message. And it can change it in a way that it becomes an untruth that is being conveyed. The message is no longer true.

Check this out. What does that communicate? If anything it communicates “God may not really be love because Daniel isn’t saying it like he really believes it.” If I communicate “God is love” in a really boring way, it doesn’t change the truth, but it does distort it. You might say, “truth speaks for itself.” “A boring sermon is still good as long as it speaks the truth.” These statements have NO meaning. A message depends on a speaker and a listener. If the speaker says one thing, and it is interpreted by the listener as something else, no message has been communicated. There is a breakdown in communication. No truth has been communicated. That is basic communication theory. There is a speaker, a medium and a listener. Every part of this equation is important to communication.

[Read more]

This post is part of a series of posts. Be sure not to miss part 1, part 2, part 3, part4 and part 5.

Augustine said, “All Truth is God’s Truth.” If this in fact is the case, is all beauty God’s beauty?

Should we use God’s beauty to attract seekers to God? What is God’s beauty?

In philosophy, the quest for truth and the quest for beauty are both highly regarded quests. In society today, it seems like the quest for beauty is more highly regarded than the quest for truth. In some circles, there is no such thing as truth, but there is such thing as beauty.

The bible seems to emphasize truth over beauty. Did God value truth far and away above beauty? After all, Jesus “…had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.” Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but through me” but he did not mention beauty. And if we’re to look to Christ in order to see God more fully, physical beauty is not to be valued very highly. Yet at the same time we are to “gaze upon the beauty of the Lord and seek him in his temple.” God is beautiful and majestic, yet Jesus “had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him” Isn’t that strange?

So practically when we are looking at the true spirituality of a church and how to reach unbelievers, it seems like we should not emphasize God’s beauty and majesty because for some reason God himself did not emphasize it with Jesus. Why? Why is it that God didn’t want us to see Jesus as so beautiful and majestic that we couldn’t help but drawn to him? God is not about physical beauty, because it’s not the core of who he is? But he made so many things physically beautiful in his creation. I don’t believe humanity’s appreciation of beauty is a result of sin. Rather humanity’s appreciation of beauty reflects our desire for God. Obviously, God is about physical beauty in some sense… but maybe it’s not the essence of who he is. Does that mean that his majesty is not the essence of who he is either?

This post is part of a series of posts. Be sure not to miss part 1, part 2, part 3, part4 and part 5.

I suppose it’s not so much repackaging God as it is finally presenting him in his TRUE light. I’ve heard it said, just preach the word, preach it directly and people will see God, and be attracted to that. I’ve heard it said, you don’t need any of that “cool” stuff like fancy music or whatever, you just need true spirituality. Can we trust that people will be attracted to true spirituality? And what is true spirituality?

Which is more reflective of God and his glory? A powerful sermon, or a boring sermon? A good worship band or a bad worship band? Seems like a boring sermon distorts God as much as some atheists do.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that anything attractive in this world comes from God. We are corrupt and therefore often we will be attracted to corrupt things. We don’t want to bring corrupt things into the church in order to attract people.

Can we trust human beings to be attracted to God? If so, the question is how can we more fully reveal God in church. Do boring sermons actually reveal God to people? What about an awesome worship team? What about an artist painting a beautiful picture?

This post is part of a series of posts. Be sure not to miss part 1, part 2, part 3, part4 and part 5.

When Philip asked Jesus “Show us the Father” in John 14, Jesus told Philip to look at himself. “Don’t you know me?” he asked Philip.

I find it interesting that God wants us to look at him through Jesus. When we think about God, we’re not supposed to think about what Isaiah saw. We’re not supposed to think of him high up in heaven with angels surrounding him. That is an incorrect view of God according to Jesus. The correct view of God is Jesus himself.

Now, why do you think God wanted us to look at him through Jesus? Why did God choose to relate to us in human form?

Another question, why did God specifically create humans? We know he created us for his pleasure and for us to worship, but he created angels and animals for his pleasure and for them to worship also. We need to be able to answer that question very specifically, otherwise we’ll never know how to worship God. We also won’t know the answer to why God chose to relate to us in human form.

This post is part of a series of posts. Be sure not to miss part 1, part 2, part 3, part4 and part 5.

People need God.

In order for people to encounter God, they must either go to him, or he must go to them.

Jesus came to us. So what does that mean?

We have this argument about that act all the time. Was it God’s way because he chose to come to us? Or was it man’s way because Jesus became a man and related to men?

Obviously it was God’s way, but the confusion comes when we try to imitate Jesus. Do we have to repackage the bible in order for people to read it? The Message is a repackaged version of the bible that some people celebrate, and others disdain. Some people quote scripture without saying it’s scripture. Is that bad? Just because we don’t say “John 3:16″ after reading it, does that mean it’s not scripture? Are we watering down the gospel? By repackaging the gospel in a way that is more relevant to today’s culture, are we repackaging God? Are we changing God so that he’ll be more palatable to humans? Is that what God did? Is Jesus a repackaged version of God that was more palatable to humans?

Which characteristic is inherently better? Obviously the “PC” answer is to say that neither is better or worse than the other, they’re just different. But I don’t want to give a PC answer.

So to solve this question, we gotta first answer the question of “how extroverted?” and “how introverted?” I think we can all agree that someone who is so extroverted that they don’t ever leave you alone, or that they’re afraid to be alone is too extroverted and is not desirable. I think we can also agree that someone who is so introverted that they are a hermit is also undesirable. Thus, rather than being a simple “Introvert vs. Extrovert” question, it is a question of degree.

The positives of being an introvert are that the person is more introspective and in tune with his or her feelings. They have more time to think and reflect and therefore they know themselves better. The problem is, with most introverts, they may know themselves better, but this is a factor of the fact that they love themselves better. Introvertism has a sense of cowardice and selfishness involved in it. I spend time with myself getting to know myself because I am the only one worth knowing. I don’t want to engage others because others are will sap my energy or worse yet, challenge me. Worse yet, introvertism has an element of elitism. I want to spend time with this one particular person and get to know this person because this person is special to me and others are not.

For an introvert to become extroverted requires much effort. Yes it may be unfair that some are created introverted when society loves the extrovert, but I believe most individuals have the capacity to overcome introvertedness and achieve some level of extrovertedness. I myself slept in the library during lunch when I was in high school so that I did not have to go out an interact with other people.

This isn’t to say that there is no danger in extrovertism. Extroverts must beware that their interactions with people are not selfish. Some extroverts like to hang out because it is fun for them rather than trying to minister to the people they are hanging out with. This too can lead to elitism. Yet I think the danger for introverts is greater. Take heart introverts. Introvertism can be overcome. Call someone up and ask them to hang out!