“One can save one’s life as a human being, along with one’s professional existence, if one seizes every opportunity, however unassuming, to act humanly toward those who need another human being. In this way we serve both the spiritual and the good. Nothing can keep us from this second job of direct human service….So many opportunities are missed because we let them pass by….Everyone in his own environment must strive to practice true humanity toward others. The future of the world depends on it.” P 216
My friend Jamie goes to Liberty University. He has changed his major a lot, officially and unofficially. He’s only a freshman. Jamie is passionate about music and ministry, he plays several instruments and was our high school chaplain last year as well as the leader of the worship team. He started at Liberty with the intent of majoring in music and ministry. Then doubt started to creep in.
Jamie is in a serious relationship with my friend Ashley. They are in love and if all goes well, will be married soon after they graduate from college. Both are pretty traditional in their views on family, they want lots of kids and Ashley at home to raise them as much as possible. Jamie places a lot of value in becoming a good father, husband, and provider. Because of these roles he wants to fulfill, Jamie started to realize that he would need a good, stable job to support his future family. So he switched majors, first to communication then to pre-med.
Jamie is a smart guy but he’s not passionate about medicine. He convinced himself that he would be happy as a pediatrician but in my opinion, he would not be satisfied with just keeping kids healthy physically, he wants to keep them healthy spiritually.
When I went to see Jamie on Easter, I talked to his dad and was told that Jamie was back to his original major of music with a concentration in ministry. I expressed my relief but also said that I understood why Jamie was apprehensive about taking on this life work. It does not offer the greatest pay and Jamie is so intent on providing for his future family, that he is scared that what he can offer with this vocation won’t be enough. This future will depend a lot on the amount of trust Jamie has in God. But because God provides, I know it is one that will make him, Ashley, and their future children, very happy.
I think Jamie’s past two semesters has a lot to do with the above quote from Schweitzer. I think Jamie in his heart is searching for ways to express his humanity. He has so many opportunities and talents and wants and needs and is trying to separate them according to his faith and future and fear. It would be very easy to go the route of pre-med and live a comfortable life and still have music as a hobby and maybe lead worship on Sundays at church. I think he would be happy. But probably not content. He might have some what-if’s. Maybe his marriage would be a little weaker, or a little stronger. He would have built his life upon the value of money and security.
By choosing the route of music and ministry, he is building his life upon trust. It is a scary road to choose at such a young age. I don’t know if I could take it. But he is not letting this opportunity pass by because of fear or uncertainty. He had his doubt and is now firm in where he stands.
“Great values are lost at every moment because we miss opportunities, but the values that are turned into will and action constitute a richness that must not be undervalued. Our humanity is by no means as materialistic as people claim so complacently.” P 216
I think Jamie proves this quote. His life and future hold a richness that he would not otherwise experience. He has the potential to be successful in many different outlets but he wouldn’t be satisfied in all of them.
Showing posts with label CCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CCC. Show all posts
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
CCC Entry
I started off the entry with the lyrics to John Mayer's 'Belief'
http://john-mayer-online-music.4t.com/text/belief.html
This is a song by John Mayer that happened to be playing while i was reading about Christian patriotism. I thought it was fitting. i feel like sometimes we confuse our national patriotism with our Christian belief. Or we use our Christian faith as a basis for the warfare without any real thought to what God would want. This song makes you step back and realize that you fighting for your beliefs is not different than anyone else fighting for theirs.
God Bless America. i hope He does. i think we're in a lot of trouble if He doesn't bless us with His mercy and grace. but even if God has blessed us it doesn't mean He isn't showering blessings on other countries or citizens. Roth concluded his essay with the thought that "allegiance to Christ does not demand we be anti-American" and throughout he talks about how we need to be patriotic without placing our country over God's kingdom. Gushee, in "What's Right about Patriotism," leaves us with this:
"We need to be able to say 'yes, but' to patriotism. Yes, we love our country, but we do not fully belong here or in any earthly land. Yes, we want our nation to flourish, but every human being and human community is equally precious in God's sight. Yes, we value our nation's ideals, but they are not the same thing as the message of our kingdom. Yes, God bless America, but He blesses other nations, too."
I feel like this is an appropriate reaction for Christian's in the face of patriotism. I think it would be extremely disrespectful to not be thankful that I'm an American. Both to God and to the many men and women who have contributed to the development of this country. But it's also important for me to realize that it's only a country and it has its faults.
As Roth went on to describe his stance on Christian pacifism, i saw many similarities between it and what we have been discussing about the ideals of the Church of the Brethren, Messiah College, and also Martin Luther King, Jr.'s nonviolence movement. Roth talks about trusting in our country more than God and how that isn't wise (duh) and so many people seem to believe that trusting in our country equals trusting in God. That the decisions our government makes are God-ordained. Well, I guess that works when you need to support the war on terror but what about the laws our government passes to protect a woman's right to choose? I don't see that as being a God-ordained decision. And yes, I support the troops and the war, but it gets very sticky. It's not black and white.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was able to shine light on the injustice in the government's choices. He trusted in God and still showed respect for his country. He chose the way of nonviolence and still made something happen. King didn't want a war, he didn't hate America, he just wanted to be a part of it. He wanted to be a citizen with full rights. He chose to trust in God and in doing so, he was able to be an American with hope for the future of the country.
Roth's article reads "it is at this point, i believe, that we Christians must ask which master we will serve: the call of Christ to drop our nets and follow him in vulnerability, or the call of the nation to pick up our weapons, march to its drumbeat, and kill those who threaten our interests." so many choose the second option without even picking up a weapon by fully supporting every action of our government (or political party) without real thought. Blind patriotism, in this way, is extremely harmful. You need to question your government and base your support in something other than politics and patriotism. Every great nation has crumbled since the beginning of time, should you just blindly support your country no matter what road it takes?
And i support the troops. i have two cousins in the military and i am so proud of them and thankful for their protection. But what are they fighting for? Their country, definitely. Freedom, for some. The greater good, perhaps. What are they putting their trust in? Their weapons? Their commander? Their country? Are soldiers just blind patriots?
We're never gonna win the world
We're never gonna stop the war
We're never gonna beat this
If belief is what we're fighting for
Is belief something you fight? I don't think we're converting many people to Christianity through war. Jesus never used hate or violence to reach the unsaved. We trust in our country's definition of what is good for us and for the world...we believe that we're helping people through war and maybe we are, in the near future. But what about eternity? War doesn't win souls.
http://john-mayer-online-music.4t.com/text/belief.html
This is a song by John Mayer that happened to be playing while i was reading about Christian patriotism. I thought it was fitting. i feel like sometimes we confuse our national patriotism with our Christian belief. Or we use our Christian faith as a basis for the warfare without any real thought to what God would want. This song makes you step back and realize that you fighting for your beliefs is not different than anyone else fighting for theirs.
God Bless America. i hope He does. i think we're in a lot of trouble if He doesn't bless us with His mercy and grace. but even if God has blessed us it doesn't mean He isn't showering blessings on other countries or citizens. Roth concluded his essay with the thought that "allegiance to Christ does not demand we be anti-American" and throughout he talks about how we need to be patriotic without placing our country over God's kingdom. Gushee, in "What's Right about Patriotism," leaves us with this:
"We need to be able to say 'yes, but' to patriotism. Yes, we love our country, but we do not fully belong here or in any earthly land. Yes, we want our nation to flourish, but every human being and human community is equally precious in God's sight. Yes, we value our nation's ideals, but they are not the same thing as the message of our kingdom. Yes, God bless America, but He blesses other nations, too."
I feel like this is an appropriate reaction for Christian's in the face of patriotism. I think it would be extremely disrespectful to not be thankful that I'm an American. Both to God and to the many men and women who have contributed to the development of this country. But it's also important for me to realize that it's only a country and it has its faults.
As Roth went on to describe his stance on Christian pacifism, i saw many similarities between it and what we have been discussing about the ideals of the Church of the Brethren, Messiah College, and also Martin Luther King, Jr.'s nonviolence movement. Roth talks about trusting in our country more than God and how that isn't wise (duh) and so many people seem to believe that trusting in our country equals trusting in God. That the decisions our government makes are God-ordained. Well, I guess that works when you need to support the war on terror but what about the laws our government passes to protect a woman's right to choose? I don't see that as being a God-ordained decision. And yes, I support the troops and the war, but it gets very sticky. It's not black and white.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was able to shine light on the injustice in the government's choices. He trusted in God and still showed respect for his country. He chose the way of nonviolence and still made something happen. King didn't want a war, he didn't hate America, he just wanted to be a part of it. He wanted to be a citizen with full rights. He chose to trust in God and in doing so, he was able to be an American with hope for the future of the country.
Roth's article reads "it is at this point, i believe, that we Christians must ask which master we will serve: the call of Christ to drop our nets and follow him in vulnerability, or the call of the nation to pick up our weapons, march to its drumbeat, and kill those who threaten our interests." so many choose the second option without even picking up a weapon by fully supporting every action of our government (or political party) without real thought. Blind patriotism, in this way, is extremely harmful. You need to question your government and base your support in something other than politics and patriotism. Every great nation has crumbled since the beginning of time, should you just blindly support your country no matter what road it takes?
And i support the troops. i have two cousins in the military and i am so proud of them and thankful for their protection. But what are they fighting for? Their country, definitely. Freedom, for some. The greater good, perhaps. What are they putting their trust in? Their weapons? Their commander? Their country? Are soldiers just blind patriots?
We're never gonna win the world
We're never gonna stop the war
We're never gonna beat this
If belief is what we're fighting for
Is belief something you fight? I don't think we're converting many people to Christianity through war. Jesus never used hate or violence to reach the unsaved. We trust in our country's definition of what is good for us and for the world...we believe that we're helping people through war and maybe we are, in the near future. But what about eternity? War doesn't win souls.
CCC Entry Nine
I think King's method of nonviolent civil disobedience was appropriate for the situation and his arguments in favor of it were founded in truth and intelligence. King said that "nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue." He went on to say that this tension is "necessary for growth." King understood that violence would not have gotten his problem solved or even brought to attention.
I think that if King had gone the road of violence, it would have only given the government and white community more reasons to deny the African American's the freedoms they sought. It would have made it that much easier for the African American's to be labeled as unequal and too dangerous to be allowed to mix with whites. I think that violence in this situation would have been more harmful to their cause. King said that oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. He led the oppressed in the spirit of love and nonviolence so that the pent up frustrations and resentment would not come out in violence.
King is quoted as saying in his letter, "so let him [the African American man] march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides-and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history."
I think that King's stance is very much related to Romans 12:14-13:7. Verse 7 of chapter 13 states: "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." I think that King's stance was both respectful and honorable of the governing authorities. He wanted change and promoted change in a manor that was loving and peaceful. He gave himself up to the punishments that went along with his actions and because of this, i do not consider it an act of resisting authority [class argument: the fact that he was arrested shows that he was doing something against the government so isn't that resisting authority and against this passage?]. "Over the past few years i have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek." Because King used pure means of love and nonviolence, he was able to accomplish the pure ends he sought.
I hope that i would have had the courage to support his actions and not have remained timid in the background as many members of the church did. King asked the question, "is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and world?" I think this question has carried on and could be asked at the present time. I think that a lot of times the church gets caught up in its 'appearance' to the world and its community. I think the church needs to stand up for biblical justice and truth and trust that God will bring the masses to their side.
I think that if King had gone the road of violence, it would have only given the government and white community more reasons to deny the African American's the freedoms they sought. It would have made it that much easier for the African American's to be labeled as unequal and too dangerous to be allowed to mix with whites. I think that violence in this situation would have been more harmful to their cause. King said that oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. He led the oppressed in the spirit of love and nonviolence so that the pent up frustrations and resentment would not come out in violence.
King is quoted as saying in his letter, "so let him [the African American man] march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides-and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history."
I think that King's stance is very much related to Romans 12:14-13:7. Verse 7 of chapter 13 states: "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." I think that King's stance was both respectful and honorable of the governing authorities. He wanted change and promoted change in a manor that was loving and peaceful. He gave himself up to the punishments that went along with his actions and because of this, i do not consider it an act of resisting authority [class argument: the fact that he was arrested shows that he was doing something against the government so isn't that resisting authority and against this passage?]. "Over the past few years i have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek." Because King used pure means of love and nonviolence, he was able to accomplish the pure ends he sought.
I hope that i would have had the courage to support his actions and not have remained timid in the background as many members of the church did. King asked the question, "is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and world?" I think this question has carried on and could be asked at the present time. I think that a lot of times the church gets caught up in its 'appearance' to the world and its community. I think the church needs to stand up for biblical justice and truth and trust that God will bring the masses to their side.
CCC Entry Eight
While i disagree with many of the beliefs of the Anabaptists, i think it is more because i disagree with their purpose behind the concepts of baptism and church and state. i do not believe that infant baptism is a symbol of pledging your life to God. I believe that baptism identifies that child as a member of the covenant community. [prof comment: a reformed position] it does not guarantee faith or salvation but rather provides a congregation to assist in the raising of the child according to scriptural teachings. it is both the parents and congregations pledge to raise the child in "the way he should go" so that "even when he is old he will not depart from it" (Prov22:6). The Anabaptist Vision writes that "only adult baptism could signify an intelligent life commitment" but i don't believe that the purpose of infant baptism is 'an intelligent life commitment' on the child's part. [prof comment: it's really child dedication]
As far as the complete separation of church and state, i feel that it is a very impractical demand. so much of the state is rooted in the same, if not similar moral beliefs of the church. The anabaptists also believe in separating themselves from the rest of the society and i think that too is very foolish. Jesus was surrounded by the secular world and sought out those who chose to most scandalous of worldly lifestyles. We, as Christians, are told to be in the world but not of the world and that is the life Jesus led. We are not impacting the world and spreading God's love by removing ourselves from it.
I am unsure of my position on pacifism. I guess I am mostly so afraid of such a radical idea of peace when war is so effective. I understand that it’s a horrible tool but I also see the many positive things in history that were results of a war. But when I think about it, I also know God can provide us with positive things through prayer and patience so obviously war shouldn’t be the only option. My thoughts at the moment are that I’m very thankful that I’m not in a position to have to decide such things of power and life or death consequences. It’s basically my same thoughts on the subject of capital punishment at this point in time. I hope my lack of opinion doesn’t come across as ignorance or unwillingness to answer the question because I have knowledge on both sides and that’s really what’s keeping me from a real stand on either side.
As far as the complete separation of church and state, i feel that it is a very impractical demand. so much of the state is rooted in the same, if not similar moral beliefs of the church. The anabaptists also believe in separating themselves from the rest of the society and i think that too is very foolish. Jesus was surrounded by the secular world and sought out those who chose to most scandalous of worldly lifestyles. We, as Christians, are told to be in the world but not of the world and that is the life Jesus led. We are not impacting the world and spreading God's love by removing ourselves from it.
I am unsure of my position on pacifism. I guess I am mostly so afraid of such a radical idea of peace when war is so effective. I understand that it’s a horrible tool but I also see the many positive things in history that were results of a war. But when I think about it, I also know God can provide us with positive things through prayer and patience so obviously war shouldn’t be the only option. My thoughts at the moment are that I’m very thankful that I’m not in a position to have to decide such things of power and life or death consequences. It’s basically my same thoughts on the subject of capital punishment at this point in time. I hope my lack of opinion doesn’t come across as ignorance or unwillingness to answer the question because I have knowledge on both sides and that’s really what’s keeping me from a real stand on either side.
CCC Entry Seven
"In community, we are no longer a mass of helpless individuals, but are transformed into one people of God. In community, our fears and anger are transformed by God's unconditional love, and we become gentle manifestations of his boundless compassion. In community, our lives become compassionate lives because in the way we live and work together, God's compassion becomes present in the midst of a broken world" (Community p 88).
As i read "community," Hurricane Katrina stuck out in my mind. Our country has become really concerned about the separation of church and state. Prayer is being replaced by a 'moment of silence.' Biblical references long etched into the sides of historical buildings are being scrutinized and condemned. What does this have to do with a natural disaster that destroyed cities and lives? In times of crisis, the state depends on the church and its compassion. How much of the relief came from the church? How many Christian communities sent forth teams to rebuild lives, one house at a time? Where was the call for separation then?
"Wherever true Christian community is formed, compassion happens in the world. The energy that radiated from the early Christian communities was indeed divine energy that had a transforming influence on all who were touched by it" (p88).
The church community has done much in compassion throughout history. They built orphanages, fed the poor, and cared for the elderly. It wasn't the politicians and government caring for their citizens, it was the church caing for God's children. Serving community as a community.
As individuals, we are extremely helpless. We cannot overcome the brokenness and heartbreak of the world without community. It is only as a group that we can begin to take on the pain and burden. In community we find strength and resilience. In community we can unite and through that unity, God's compassion is shown. We can go out into the world and give our time and love with abundance.
Acts 2:42-47 talks of believers living and fellowshipping together. "And all who believe were together and had all things in common...and day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved."
This passage really describes the incredible effects of community. Jesus surrounded Himself in a community of His disciples. This act was not done for us to disregard. He knew the importance of community and showing compassion through it.
As i read "community," Hurricane Katrina stuck out in my mind. Our country has become really concerned about the separation of church and state. Prayer is being replaced by a 'moment of silence.' Biblical references long etched into the sides of historical buildings are being scrutinized and condemned. What does this have to do with a natural disaster that destroyed cities and lives? In times of crisis, the state depends on the church and its compassion. How much of the relief came from the church? How many Christian communities sent forth teams to rebuild lives, one house at a time? Where was the call for separation then?
"Wherever true Christian community is formed, compassion happens in the world. The energy that radiated from the early Christian communities was indeed divine energy that had a transforming influence on all who were touched by it" (p88).
The church community has done much in compassion throughout history. They built orphanages, fed the poor, and cared for the elderly. It wasn't the politicians and government caring for their citizens, it was the church caing for God's children. Serving community as a community.
As individuals, we are extremely helpless. We cannot overcome the brokenness and heartbreak of the world without community. It is only as a group that we can begin to take on the pain and burden. In community we find strength and resilience. In community we can unite and through that unity, God's compassion is shown. We can go out into the world and give our time and love with abundance.
Acts 2:42-47 talks of believers living and fellowshipping together. "And all who believe were together and had all things in common...and day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved."
This passage really describes the incredible effects of community. Jesus surrounded Himself in a community of His disciples. This act was not done for us to disregard. He knew the importance of community and showing compassion through it.
CCC Entry Six
"Despite their deliverance from slavery in Egypt, the twelves tribes were not a community united by a common purpose, vision, and values. They bickered, complained, and murmured on the wilderness wanderings (Ex16-18). Their new experiences of freedom required structure and identity."
This quote, taken from John Stanley's "Convenant as a Biblical Basis for Community" goes on to say that the needed order was provided by the Mosaic covenant and the article focuses mainly on the idea of covenant. However, I am going to apply the quote to the Church in the way that most denominations within the Body of Christ also bicker, complain, and murmur. Even though they are a community united by Jesus Christ, that thought tends to be overlooked.
The idea expressed in 'Gracious Christianity' that "church refers to a local gathering of believers, people who know one another face-to-face, people who put up with one another's quirks and foibles, people who genuinely try to love one another despite all their imperfections" (p89) is something that i have been spending a lot of time thinking about. I am a member of an OPC, strict in it's worship style, beliefs, and doctrine. I believe strongly in the doctrine it sets forth and enjoy the traditional worship of hymns but I am struggling with the legality it has begun to set forth. Again, I do believe in the doctrines but i'm wondering if we spend too much time on these intellectual concepts of predestination, total depravity, etc. and not enough time on the love and faith of the gospel.
"The church becomes a school of mutual hospitality where the opening and reopening of our lives to one another in welcome, forgiveness, repentance, and hope slowly molds us into people of true and genuine compassion" (p92).
I read this and thought 'yes! that is how it should be!' and wondered just how far my own church is from that. Do i give up my firm belief in my church's set doctrine and go to one that better follows the above definition? My belief in specific doctrine is what allows me to understand how i received salvation and who i am as a sinful human and Creation of God. i don't want to turn my back on those beliefs for the sake of a church i find to be more focuses on walking in love [as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (Eph5:2)].
And my home church does walk in love. They have compassion and love for the congregation. But i fear the path we seem to be taking, away from that love and compassion and towards the legalistic focus. In the end, salvation will not depend on your interpretation of the end times or whether we as humans have free will in one sense or another. Surely, these aspects of Christianity are important to understanding the 'hows' and 'whys' but not to your daily walk.
So how much time should the Church focus on explaining and preaching their doctrine? When i discuss doctrine and see how much focus is placed on it, I am reminded of the plea from Paul, "i appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and judgment" (ICor1:10). The Church is not meant to be divided, that is seen throughout the Bible.
As a senior, my high school class had to choose a verse to represent us and the one we decided upon also comes to mind as i think about the issues the Church spends so much time arguing about. Philippians 1:27 reads, "only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel." While i struggle in confusion about where my church stands, i look outside it and only get more confused by the Church as a whole.
This quote, taken from John Stanley's "Convenant as a Biblical Basis for Community" goes on to say that the needed order was provided by the Mosaic covenant and the article focuses mainly on the idea of covenant. However, I am going to apply the quote to the Church in the way that most denominations within the Body of Christ also bicker, complain, and murmur. Even though they are a community united by Jesus Christ, that thought tends to be overlooked.
The idea expressed in 'Gracious Christianity' that "church refers to a local gathering of believers, people who know one another face-to-face, people who put up with one another's quirks and foibles, people who genuinely try to love one another despite all their imperfections" (p89) is something that i have been spending a lot of time thinking about. I am a member of an OPC, strict in it's worship style, beliefs, and doctrine. I believe strongly in the doctrine it sets forth and enjoy the traditional worship of hymns but I am struggling with the legality it has begun to set forth. Again, I do believe in the doctrines but i'm wondering if we spend too much time on these intellectual concepts of predestination, total depravity, etc. and not enough time on the love and faith of the gospel.
"The church becomes a school of mutual hospitality where the opening and reopening of our lives to one another in welcome, forgiveness, repentance, and hope slowly molds us into people of true and genuine compassion" (p92).
I read this and thought 'yes! that is how it should be!' and wondered just how far my own church is from that. Do i give up my firm belief in my church's set doctrine and go to one that better follows the above definition? My belief in specific doctrine is what allows me to understand how i received salvation and who i am as a sinful human and Creation of God. i don't want to turn my back on those beliefs for the sake of a church i find to be more focuses on walking in love [as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (Eph5:2)].
And my home church does walk in love. They have compassion and love for the congregation. But i fear the path we seem to be taking, away from that love and compassion and towards the legalistic focus. In the end, salvation will not depend on your interpretation of the end times or whether we as humans have free will in one sense or another. Surely, these aspects of Christianity are important to understanding the 'hows' and 'whys' but not to your daily walk.
So how much time should the Church focus on explaining and preaching their doctrine? When i discuss doctrine and see how much focus is placed on it, I am reminded of the plea from Paul, "i appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and judgment" (ICor1:10). The Church is not meant to be divided, that is seen throughout the Bible.
As a senior, my high school class had to choose a verse to represent us and the one we decided upon also comes to mind as i think about the issues the Church spends so much time arguing about. Philippians 1:27 reads, "only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel." While i struggle in confusion about where my church stands, i look outside it and only get more confused by the Church as a whole.
CCC Entry Five
READ: Alice Walker essay
I thought a really significant point of reading Alice Walker's essay was the idea that the creativity of the African American women could not be suppressed while they were oppressed through slavery. I think that creativity is something that cannot be extinguished in times of turmoil and trouble and this has been seen throughout history. Many times, artists prove their genius with works made during the darkest of times. Picasso's Blue Period began after the suicide of a close friend and produced some of his most popular works. The Bible also supports this idea with some of the most beautiful Psalms depicting the deep anguish in David's life.
In Alice Walker's essay she describes the routine of many African American women during the 18th century and asks how the creativity was kept alive. These women were not allowed to read, paint, or sculpt. How much greatness was held back by the oppression? How much greatness was released by the oppression? Walker writes of a quilt in the Smithsonian Institute created by an anonymous black woman in Alabama, a hundred years ago. "If we could locate this 'anonymous' black woman from Alabama, she would turn out to be one of our grandmothers-an artist who left her mark in the only materials she could afford, and in the only medium her position in society allowed her to use" (p74).
I believe if we could go back and listen in on the women singing in the fields as they worked, we would hear voices more honest and beautiful than any on the radio today. We would hear the raw feeling pouring out of their mouth as they praised God and made the hours go a little faster. If we look to the little touches in the folk art and song, we will see a generation of unconvered talent and creativity.
"And so our mothers and grandmothers have, more often than not anonymously, handed on the creative spark, the seed of the flower they themselves never hoped to see: or like a sealed letter they could not plainly read."
Alice Walker recalls her mother's garden and the beauty and 'magic' that flowed from her creation in the yard. Walker thinks back on her mother's face "as she prepares the Art that is her gift, is a legacy of respect she leaves to me, for all that illuminates and cherishes life." Walker saw the garden as the creativity outlet in her mother's otherwise dismal life.
One quote from describing her mother's art was especially interesting to me: "I notice that it is only when my mother is working in her flowers that she is radiant, almost to the point of being invisible-except as Creator: hand and eye. She is involved in work her soul must have. Ordering the universe in the image of her personal conception of Beauty." It is an observation that one could have looking upon most artists working on their pieces.
I love that Walker was able to capture that feeling of creativity and recognize it in her mother's gardening. She talks of mothers and grandmothers who pass on the creative spark without much recognition. It is such a shame that so much beauty was left untapped. But Walker also talks of how the stories she writes are truly her mother's stories. The legacy of her mother's creativity runs through Walker and can be seen in her art. In this way, the creativity of the African American women during the 18th century is being released by the generations of artists born after them.
I thought a really significant point of reading Alice Walker's essay was the idea that the creativity of the African American women could not be suppressed while they were oppressed through slavery. I think that creativity is something that cannot be extinguished in times of turmoil and trouble and this has been seen throughout history. Many times, artists prove their genius with works made during the darkest of times. Picasso's Blue Period began after the suicide of a close friend and produced some of his most popular works. The Bible also supports this idea with some of the most beautiful Psalms depicting the deep anguish in David's life.
In Alice Walker's essay she describes the routine of many African American women during the 18th century and asks how the creativity was kept alive. These women were not allowed to read, paint, or sculpt. How much greatness was held back by the oppression? How much greatness was released by the oppression? Walker writes of a quilt in the Smithsonian Institute created by an anonymous black woman in Alabama, a hundred years ago. "If we could locate this 'anonymous' black woman from Alabama, she would turn out to be one of our grandmothers-an artist who left her mark in the only materials she could afford, and in the only medium her position in society allowed her to use" (p74).
I believe if we could go back and listen in on the women singing in the fields as they worked, we would hear voices more honest and beautiful than any on the radio today. We would hear the raw feeling pouring out of their mouth as they praised God and made the hours go a little faster. If we look to the little touches in the folk art and song, we will see a generation of unconvered talent and creativity.
"And so our mothers and grandmothers have, more often than not anonymously, handed on the creative spark, the seed of the flower they themselves never hoped to see: or like a sealed letter they could not plainly read."
Alice Walker recalls her mother's garden and the beauty and 'magic' that flowed from her creation in the yard. Walker thinks back on her mother's face "as she prepares the Art that is her gift, is a legacy of respect she leaves to me, for all that illuminates and cherishes life." Walker saw the garden as the creativity outlet in her mother's otherwise dismal life.
One quote from describing her mother's art was especially interesting to me: "I notice that it is only when my mother is working in her flowers that she is radiant, almost to the point of being invisible-except as Creator: hand and eye. She is involved in work her soul must have. Ordering the universe in the image of her personal conception of Beauty." It is an observation that one could have looking upon most artists working on their pieces.
I love that Walker was able to capture that feeling of creativity and recognize it in her mother's gardening. She talks of mothers and grandmothers who pass on the creative spark without much recognition. It is such a shame that so much beauty was left untapped. But Walker also talks of how the stories she writes are truly her mother's stories. The legacy of her mother's creativity runs through Walker and can be seen in her art. In this way, the creativity of the African American women during the 18th century is being released by the generations of artists born after them.
CCC Entry Two
[I skipped the first journal as it only lists different aspects of the two creation accounts in Genesis 1-2]
READ: Jacobsen, Douglas & Sawatsky, Rodney J. "Preface" and "God and Creation" in Gracious Christianity
I thought these chapters were well written and on the most part, I agree with them, but I got a little queasy around the areas talking about choosing between life and death. The book talks about the choice we all have concerning the options of life and death and how it relates to us being created in the Image of God. As a Christian who believes in predestination and free will granted only to the saved, I do not necessarily equate this 'freedom' with being created in His Image.
My beliefs concerning the topic are that God has predestined us to either heaven or hell. Prior to being granted salvation, nothing we can do is seen as good in the eyes of God. We have no choice because our only option is death and sin. It is only after we are granted salvation [prof comment: how does this get granted? can people repent?] that we experience the gift of free will and have the ability to choose the Truth of God over the sin of the world.
As I read the section under "The Image of God", i do not disagree with all the statements. I do agree that "like God, human beings can think and act and decide. We are not mechanically determined machines, nor are we driven by instinct alone. We are people, and as such, we possess the freedom and responsibility to determine who we will be" (p40). However, as the authors continue they move onto the choice that determines our eternal soul. I do not agree that the decision is left up to us. I believe that I was "in love, predestined for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will" as stated in Ephesians 1:5. Nothin i could have done would have prevented God's love from changing my heart and granting salvation.
The chapters in 'Gracious Christianity' handle similiar topics very differently than Birch did within his article "In the Image of God." Birch wrote on "the nature of God as Creator and ourselves as creatures" (p10) with the intent of showing a significant role for the Bible, specifically the Old Testament, in our lives. It focuses on the interpretation of specific verses and their meanings.
'Gracious Christianity' seems to focus on the subject in a way to show us how it relates to God's love for us and how that love should influence our actions and love. As the title is defined within the book as "Christianity so deeply rooted in God's love that we cannot help but love others in the same gracious way," the topics within the book surround this concept. It does not detail individual verses and their intent but rather aims to answer the questions "who is the Creator, what kind of God would do this, why did God make the universe, and why and for what purpose did God make us."
I think it dealth 'enough' with creation because it accomplished the goal of answering the questions established in the beginning of the chapter. I do not think this book was written for the same purpose as an articles like Birch's so I will not hold it to the same expectations.
[prof comment: strong ideas]
READ: Jacobsen, Douglas & Sawatsky, Rodney J. "Preface" and "God and Creation" in Gracious Christianity
I thought these chapters were well written and on the most part, I agree with them, but I got a little queasy around the areas talking about choosing between life and death. The book talks about the choice we all have concerning the options of life and death and how it relates to us being created in the Image of God. As a Christian who believes in predestination and free will granted only to the saved, I do not necessarily equate this 'freedom' with being created in His Image.
My beliefs concerning the topic are that God has predestined us to either heaven or hell. Prior to being granted salvation, nothing we can do is seen as good in the eyes of God. We have no choice because our only option is death and sin. It is only after we are granted salvation [prof comment: how does this get granted? can people repent?] that we experience the gift of free will and have the ability to choose the Truth of God over the sin of the world.
As I read the section under "The Image of God", i do not disagree with all the statements. I do agree that "like God, human beings can think and act and decide. We are not mechanically determined machines, nor are we driven by instinct alone. We are people, and as such, we possess the freedom and responsibility to determine who we will be" (p40). However, as the authors continue they move onto the choice that determines our eternal soul. I do not agree that the decision is left up to us. I believe that I was "in love, predestined for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will" as stated in Ephesians 1:5. Nothin i could have done would have prevented God's love from changing my heart and granting salvation.
The chapters in 'Gracious Christianity' handle similiar topics very differently than Birch did within his article "In the Image of God." Birch wrote on "the nature of God as Creator and ourselves as creatures" (p10) with the intent of showing a significant role for the Bible, specifically the Old Testament, in our lives. It focuses on the interpretation of specific verses and their meanings.
'Gracious Christianity' seems to focus on the subject in a way to show us how it relates to God's love for us and how that love should influence our actions and love. As the title is defined within the book as "Christianity so deeply rooted in God's love that we cannot help but love others in the same gracious way," the topics within the book surround this concept. It does not detail individual verses and their intent but rather aims to answer the questions "who is the Creator, what kind of God would do this, why did God make the universe, and why and for what purpose did God make us."
I think it dealth 'enough' with creation because it accomplished the goal of answering the questions established in the beginning of the chapter. I do not think this book was written for the same purpose as an articles like Birch's so I will not hold it to the same expectations.
[prof comment: strong ideas]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)