Sometimes we live so much of our life in reaction. We are hurt, and we
respond. We see what someone did to us, or how someone was treated and we
respond. Live becomes about reaction. I think even the most noble of us
would have to admit that a lot of what we do is about reaction.
I am teaching a leadership class right now, and one thing I am supposed to
teach is how those who are successful are proactive. Despite the
circumstances, we understand life a certain way with principals and values,
and therefore we respond in that way. DESPITE the circumstances. When one
thinks of this idea immediately thinks of the Bible and turning the other
cheek. I think that is part of it, but it is even much more than that....or
rather turning the other cheek becomes a broader image.
For example, and I might be going out on a limb here...which is more correct?
To try and correct the sins of the church in the past--trying to redeem
ourselves based on past conduct,
OR rather despite the past, looking at the Bible and God, finding the correct
way to live, and basing our decisions on that--coming to our values and ways
to live based on something which in many ways is outside of time? Even though
once constructed in time--it stands the same (or nearly the same) for all time.
Perhaps I am confusing you. But this is my point. We look at the past and
say ...man guys you had it wrong!.....so then, do our decisions become based
on what is right?...or rather being as far away from the "wrong" as possible.
The pendulum sweeps across the stage and is caught by the current culture.
We try to determine what is right, but it is also informed with our own
bitterness, our own hurts, our own prejudices. Albeit new kinds of prejudice.
So to determine what is right--outside of time, place or culture is proactive.
Our values, and principals determine us.
To determine what is "wrong" and trying to correct it...can easily slip (not
always but easily) into reactive. and reactive can easily slip into wrong.
And more often this wrong comes from a sense that we are somehow noble; noble
because we are not "them"....
I have the feeling that most of us, including myself...are way to often reactive.
6 comments:
Every individual's "wrong" is someone else's "right."
Or at the very least, every individual's "wrong" or "right," is someone else's gray area.
Anyway, I think there's trouble when we talk of groups of people or whole churches "believing" some one thing.
But this whole thing about determining "right" and "wrong" is interesting. And it's not like these are concepts that just exist in a vaccuum and we choose the ones that God tells us to.
I'm just enough of a modernist to think that the Kingdom of God, (and I would define that as God's ethic REALIZED by His people), would benefit all people, not just the Christians, safe in their churches with their minds made up.
The church has to believe in one thing, or there simply is no church. You may as well be getting together every Sunday and exchanging cheesecake recipes if you don't believe in one thing, and that is the only way to God is through Jesus.
I also think the putting labels on anything as "right" and "wrong" is dangerous. But when we try to react, or correct the mistakes of the ones "gone before us" so to speak, then we are just as guilty of labeling things as right or wrong.
I've always thought that it's more Christian to live your life as being "for" things, rather than "against" things. In fact, I think it's better to live yoru life that way being non-Christian.
I think it's always questionable to use the opposite of what you hate or despise or see as "wrong" as the framework for your worldview. When you are the opposite, that means you are opposing something, and when you oppose you create conflict. You draw lines. If the church is supposed to NOT be one thing, it's DIVIDED. When you decide to play opposing sides and create divisions, you are labeling things as "right" and "wrong." That's no way to be a Christian, if that's what we're talking about here.
So, are you saying it's better to have an UNDIVIDED church that lives by ungodly principles than to have a DIVIDED church where half of the people are living by godly principles and half aren't? Just for the sake of there being no conflict?
To me, that is messed up.
But unfortunately for me, you have Paul's first letter to the Corinthians on your side, where he talks about not causing a brother to stumble with your freedom, even if they are in error.
I've always hated that teaching. (That's right, I said I hate a passage of scripture.)
As far as the nature of a church and belief-- I think it's a very far leap from what I tried to say: a)namely that it's rather impossible to have a room full of people, all with the exact same mental assents to the exact same propositions to b)the idea that they might as well be trading cheesecake recipes.
How about the idea of the church as hospital for hurting people rather than as collection of folks with the exact same opinions on this Jesus fellow?
How about the idea of TOGETHER trying to get to the point where we all believe correct things about God, and act from those beliefs, rather than assuming that situation already exists or even worse, making "belief" a pre-requisite?
Anyway, the "For" and "Against" stuff totally works for me if we're talking about the church in relation to the non-church world. I think a church that is FOR helping people who need help is much better than one that is AGAINST tinkie-winkie. I think we agree there.
But I assumed Sweet T was talking about this as it involves relations within the church.
But I will also say this, people who define themselves only by what they crticize are a tremendous burden to me and a real drag to be around. They make me nervous. They make me wonder if and when I happen to say or think something they don't agree with, when I will be fodder for their discussions.
That said, though-- man, I'm just not ready to totally jump onboard with killing individual conscience when it comes to church and faith matters.
If it's a divided church then it is ungodly, No matter what else you are doing because God calls us to unity. To be honest we are all ungodly--neither side is completely right,(and both sides are probably way more wrong than we are right) and once we believe part of the church is right and part is wrong --we are in the real danger of putting someone/usually ourselves or the group we are in, on a pedestal--arrogance and pride set in. Which is the opposite of the humility God calls us to. We don't have to compare ourselves to another group whether in the past or present. Just live in the way we believe God cals us to live.
God, I ask you right now to let your power and grace come into our lives--the lives of my friends and I. Make us whole. Let each of us have a real experience with you. To Know you intimately and personally. Let the power of God be evident in our lives--so that we they see us, they will see you.
I think some of the things I said were taken in ways I didn't mean. I am not going to point out what was misunderstood, or keep the attacks going. I love you guys.
No, I'm not saying that it is better to have an entirely undivided church that is entirely ungodly.
But you do all have to believe (the word you're having trouble with) that Jesus is the only way we can experience God. To be a Christian, you are called to just simply have faith. It all seems ridiculous, but then again Christianity is not a philosophy or a self-discipline. I think when you believe in Jesus (as a starting point), then something supernatural and mystical comes alive in you. No, it really can't be explained outside of personal experience. "Belief" is a starting point for the journey of faith. If you don't believe, you can't experience God.
And I believe that the church should be a hospital for hurting people, but I've yet to see a denominational church that I've attended or been a member of that knows how to put that into any sort of practice.
There is too much in-fighting, squabbling, and power struggles within the denominational church. Most denominational churches are too busy patting themselves on the back for being so "different" than the other churches they have labeled as being "wrong" to be a hospital for hurting people. Ironically, they "get it" less than the churches they label as wrong.
Hurting people are not just the homeless, or the sick, or the homosexual, or the Democratic outcast......hurting people are also those who are simply lonely or need a friend. And most denominational churches (I won't say all) don't know how to reach out at all. Most of them are too busy congratulating themselves or putting out press releases to even notice the overlooked in the church.
Also, to maybe explain better what Theresa was saying, you don't become justified before God as a church for being intolerant of those you disagree with or think have it all wrong. As a church (united.....without denominations) are called to be tolerant.....PERIOD, regardless of social standing, political opinion, sexual persuasion, or marital status. Being tolerant does not mean being intolerant of people who have hurt us or hurt anyone.
I think maybe that is what Theresa was saying.
I'm sorry if I offended or angered anybody.
Just trying to figure this church thing out, as I probably will be for the rest of my life.
Love,
Mike
Post a Comment