I'm about to write something that is sure to stir the ire of many. Let me preface this by saying that I am as capitalist as the next guy. I'd love for my market value to be in the seven figures, but I realize it's not and I'm satisfied with that.
My point is this. I hear all kinds of people rail against socialism and all socialist practices saying that it is undemocratic. I can understand why they're making these claims and I can understand how in certain situations it might be true, but I wanted to analyze this claim for just a moment.
Democracy is a political system. It is government by the people. Socialism is an economic system. It's idea is to spread wealth around to the most people as possible. Whether you agree with the economic system is one thing, but to claim that socialism automatically brings the end of democracy is a ludicrous claim. I turn your attention to Franklin Roosevelt. He was nothing if not a socialist. In fact, most of his policies were railed against in Congress at the time they were introduced, but they helped bring the United States out of the Great Depression. Again, you don't have to like the policies, but let's at least sound educated about it.
Can economics bring about the end of a government type? Sure. Does it automatically mean it will? Of course not. We the people rule this country. Our leaders are responsible to us. We did send them there to lead and so, to the best of our conscience, we must follow. But we set the course of this nation.
I for one think that no political or economic system is the answer. There is no king or president that can truly give us peace and prosperity. If the church would really be the church, I think that our societal problems would take care of themselves. I personally don't think the government should take care of people because I believe that we, the body of Christ, should take care of them. However, something is better than nothing. If the government wants to help its people, perhaps we should support that at least.
This has been on my mind for a while. I realize this may not be the most eloquent post, but it's the best I can come up with this morning.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Disconnect
I just bought movie tickets online. In fact, I buy a lot of products online. I love shopping online. For introverts like me, the internet has been a wonderful invention. I can stay at home and do much of my shopping without ever having to interact with real people. I prefer emails to dealing with businesses over the phone. I would rather check out a website for information than call someone. I would often rather text a person rather than speak to them.
My point is this. With all the wonderful technology available to us that's designed to keep us in touch with one another, we've become disconnected with each other. We never speak. We never interact. It's like all the technology that was invented to make work easier that really just created more work, the irony of technology.
We don't understand what community is. We don't understand what intimacy is. We don't even know how to carry on an intelligent conversation. It's like achievement tests in school. They were designed to test students' knowledge of basic concepts, but education has declined.
When I read the book of Acts, I get discouraged at the state of things in the church today. I think we don't love one another very much. I think we don't understand what it means to be the Body of Christ.
Perhaps we could learn from the generations before us. Many of the older people in our church talk to one another. They talk for long periods of time. I know this because they will talk to me. You can't get some older people to stop talking. Perhaps this isn't a flaw. Perhaps it's not senility. Perhaps they really do like to talk to people and simply have a conversation. Maybe it doesn't have to be about anything. Maybe simply talking is enough.
I usually don't speak unless I have something to say. This drive my wife crazy. When she asks me about my day, she really wants to hear about it, even if it's boring. Maybe the importance of the conversation isn't the point. Maybe the conversation is the point. I've always felt like the destination is the only important thing in a trip. Perhaps the journey is equally important.
My point is this. With all the wonderful technology available to us that's designed to keep us in touch with one another, we've become disconnected with each other. We never speak. We never interact. It's like all the technology that was invented to make work easier that really just created more work, the irony of technology.
We don't understand what community is. We don't understand what intimacy is. We don't even know how to carry on an intelligent conversation. It's like achievement tests in school. They were designed to test students' knowledge of basic concepts, but education has declined.
When I read the book of Acts, I get discouraged at the state of things in the church today. I think we don't love one another very much. I think we don't understand what it means to be the Body of Christ.
Perhaps we could learn from the generations before us. Many of the older people in our church talk to one another. They talk for long periods of time. I know this because they will talk to me. You can't get some older people to stop talking. Perhaps this isn't a flaw. Perhaps it's not senility. Perhaps they really do like to talk to people and simply have a conversation. Maybe it doesn't have to be about anything. Maybe simply talking is enough.
I usually don't speak unless I have something to say. This drive my wife crazy. When she asks me about my day, she really wants to hear about it, even if it's boring. Maybe the importance of the conversation isn't the point. Maybe the conversation is the point. I've always felt like the destination is the only important thing in a trip. Perhaps the journey is equally important.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Birthdays
I just concluded probably the best birthday celebration I've ever had. First my amazing wife coordinated a suprise party with my students and their parents on my actual birthday (Nov. 2). This was a very nice party and it was really a lot of fun.
Last night, however, was the piece de resistance. She knows that I like the theater group Stomp. She found out they were going to be in Fort Worth last night at the Bass Performance Hall, so she bought tickets. If you've never seen the Bass Performance Hall, you really should, it's absolutely beautiful! We started the evening off at Ruth's Chris steakhouse. This was probably the best (and most expensive) steak I've ever eaten. It was delicious! Succulent and tender, it melted in my mouth. What a great meal! Then we went to Bass Hall to see Stomp. If you don't know about them, they are a percussion group that makes music out of random things (trashcan lids, pipes, match boxes, paper and plastic bags, sand, and various other things). It was absolutely incredible!! (You can tell I really liked the whole evening because I never use exclamation points so liberally.) Easily one of the top ten nights of my life!
If you haven't met my wife, you really should. She is a wonderful, loving person. And you should see Stomp and go to Ruth's Chris steakhouse.
Last night, however, was the piece de resistance. She knows that I like the theater group Stomp. She found out they were going to be in Fort Worth last night at the Bass Performance Hall, so she bought tickets. If you've never seen the Bass Performance Hall, you really should, it's absolutely beautiful! We started the evening off at Ruth's Chris steakhouse. This was probably the best (and most expensive) steak I've ever eaten. It was delicious! Succulent and tender, it melted in my mouth. What a great meal! Then we went to Bass Hall to see Stomp. If you don't know about them, they are a percussion group that makes music out of random things (trashcan lids, pipes, match boxes, paper and plastic bags, sand, and various other things). It was absolutely incredible!! (You can tell I really liked the whole evening because I never use exclamation points so liberally.) Easily one of the top ten nights of my life!
If you haven't met my wife, you really should. She is a wonderful, loving person. And you should see Stomp and go to Ruth's Chris steakhouse.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Let the Nations Be Glad
I've begun reading John Piper's book Let the Nations Be Glad! Piper usually represents a really dense read, something that takes me a while to muddle through. I have no delusions that this book won't be that, but let me tell you why I'm really excited about it.
Piper is unapologetically Calvinist, but he makes some very good points about the supremacy of God and the need for authentic, passionate worship. In the first paragraph he states,
Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn't. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. His premise is that if people would worship rightly, missions would be unnecessary. If Christians would fulfill their duty as believers, worshipping God in his magnificence, Missions would not be needed. Missions is an outflow of our hearts of worship. If we truly love God, his love will roll off our tongues with ease. If we are truly passionate about God we won't lack the drive to tell others about him.
When true love, true passion does not exist, neither does true missions. If we don't truly love God and are passionate about him, missions is just another job, a way to earn a living (albeit not always a good one).
I realize that some people get bent out of shape at the mention of Calvinism and I am not one to blindly follow anyone, I think that we need to look at individual ideas and not a complete systematic theology. There are individual points in Calvinism that are absolutely biblical and some that make me cringe, but the same is true for all boxes we unceremoniously stuff God into (sometimes we do use ceremony, too).
That being said, I long to dive head-first into a world where God is proclaimed for who he really is, where he is ultimate and I am minuscule. I want my love for God to flow effortlessly from me, meaning that I must love God more than I do right now. Let the nations be glad because God is God. He is worthy of our praise
Piper is unapologetically Calvinist, but he makes some very good points about the supremacy of God and the need for authentic, passionate worship. In the first paragraph he states,
Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn't. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. His premise is that if people would worship rightly, missions would be unnecessary. If Christians would fulfill their duty as believers, worshipping God in his magnificence, Missions would not be needed. Missions is an outflow of our hearts of worship. If we truly love God, his love will roll off our tongues with ease. If we are truly passionate about God we won't lack the drive to tell others about him.
When true love, true passion does not exist, neither does true missions. If we don't truly love God and are passionate about him, missions is just another job, a way to earn a living (albeit not always a good one).
I realize that some people get bent out of shape at the mention of Calvinism and I am not one to blindly follow anyone, I think that we need to look at individual ideas and not a complete systematic theology. There are individual points in Calvinism that are absolutely biblical and some that make me cringe, but the same is true for all boxes we unceremoniously stuff God into (sometimes we do use ceremony, too).
That being said, I long to dive head-first into a world where God is proclaimed for who he really is, where he is ultimate and I am minuscule. I want my love for God to flow effortlessly from me, meaning that I must love God more than I do right now. Let the nations be glad because God is God. He is worthy of our praise
Monday, November 10, 2008
Gain
I recently began teaching our college/young adult Sunday school class. I decided to start with some of Paul's letters and we've been reading through Philippians. Yesterday our discussion was centered around the first chapter of this letter.
I am only now beginning to really understand what Paul was talking about in verse 21. Here he makes the claim that to live is Christ and to die is gain. As I was studying and trying to wrap my mind around this statement that I have heard for years, I encountered a facinating statement made by my favorite College professor and comentator, Bob Utley.
He says that Paul was able to make this claim because his life was already over. To Paul, life existed for the sole purpose of furthering the Kingdom of God. There was nothing else to Paul. In this sense, death represented only the culmination of his life, the final step into eternity, into the presence of God himself.
Looking at the life of Paul and reading his letters gives us even better insight into his statements. In Galatians, he had already declared that he had been crucified with Christ. Paul's life was already over. He had already given everything to live an existence devoted to Christ, there was nothing he had to lose.
As I stated earlier, I am just beginning to understand this statement, on the fringes of wrapping my mind around it. It is very liberating, to be set free from the constraints of life, from the bonds of society, from the expectations of what I think I need. All I need is Christ. When God says that he will supply all our needs, perhaps this is what he's talking about. Perhaps what he gives us is himself. Perhaps we need nothing more.
I am only now beginning to really understand what Paul was talking about in verse 21. Here he makes the claim that to live is Christ and to die is gain. As I was studying and trying to wrap my mind around this statement that I have heard for years, I encountered a facinating statement made by my favorite College professor and comentator, Bob Utley.
He says that Paul was able to make this claim because his life was already over. To Paul, life existed for the sole purpose of furthering the Kingdom of God. There was nothing else to Paul. In this sense, death represented only the culmination of his life, the final step into eternity, into the presence of God himself.
Looking at the life of Paul and reading his letters gives us even better insight into his statements. In Galatians, he had already declared that he had been crucified with Christ. Paul's life was already over. He had already given everything to live an existence devoted to Christ, there was nothing he had to lose.
As I stated earlier, I am just beginning to understand this statement, on the fringes of wrapping my mind around it. It is very liberating, to be set free from the constraints of life, from the bonds of society, from the expectations of what I think I need. All I need is Christ. When God says that he will supply all our needs, perhaps this is what he's talking about. Perhaps what he gives us is himself. Perhaps we need nothing more.
Friday, November 7, 2008
despair.com
A friend just sent me this link. You must check it out. It's just my kind of humor.
despair.com
despair.com
Paradox
I recently read the book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. In it one of the characters tells the main character that there are no contradictions in life. If you find a contradiction, then you must re-examine your premises. In doing so, you will find that one or more of them are wrong.
As I read the Bible, there are times when it seems like scripture contradicts itself. As I read closer, though, I discover simply a paradox. A paradox is one or more statements that seem to be contradictory or mutually exclusive, but in fact represent truth. It simply defines what is. It makes me more thoughtful about everything. What are my presuppositions when I approach new information? What are my cultural biases that control my actions? What are the premises I need to re-examine so I don't find myself awash in contradiction?
After a probably less-than thorough examination of my biases, I have come up with a few things I believe are certain.
Scripture is complete, accurate, and singular in purpose.
There is nothing in scripture that contradicts itself.
There is nothing in scripture that contradicts the nature or will of God.
If all scripture is true, then I must live within the truth of scripture as I understand it. I am responsible for the knowledge I possess. If I find tension anywhere in scripture, I must struggle to understand it better. I believe scripture is subtle and nuanced and we can't always approach it and devour it in large chunks. We must sometimes be subtle and digest truth in small, savory bites. God wants to reveal himself to us through his word, but like any relationship, the more we know and understand about God, the deeper we can go. We no longer have to struggle with the big things, we get to see God more intimately, more closely. We get to experience God's true nature.
Perhaps that is why Enoch walked with God and then simply was no more. Perhaps he reached a point of understanding and intimacy that he simply was taken straight into the presence of God. Of course, I'm simply speculating here, but how extraordinary!
What are your thoughts?
As I read the Bible, there are times when it seems like scripture contradicts itself. As I read closer, though, I discover simply a paradox. A paradox is one or more statements that seem to be contradictory or mutually exclusive, but in fact represent truth. It simply defines what is. It makes me more thoughtful about everything. What are my presuppositions when I approach new information? What are my cultural biases that control my actions? What are the premises I need to re-examine so I don't find myself awash in contradiction?
After a probably less-than thorough examination of my biases, I have come up with a few things I believe are certain.
Scripture is complete, accurate, and singular in purpose.
There is nothing in scripture that contradicts itself.
There is nothing in scripture that contradicts the nature or will of God.
If all scripture is true, then I must live within the truth of scripture as I understand it. I am responsible for the knowledge I possess. If I find tension anywhere in scripture, I must struggle to understand it better. I believe scripture is subtle and nuanced and we can't always approach it and devour it in large chunks. We must sometimes be subtle and digest truth in small, savory bites. God wants to reveal himself to us through his word, but like any relationship, the more we know and understand about God, the deeper we can go. We no longer have to struggle with the big things, we get to see God more intimately, more closely. We get to experience God's true nature.
Perhaps that is why Enoch walked with God and then simply was no more. Perhaps he reached a point of understanding and intimacy that he simply was taken straight into the presence of God. Of course, I'm simply speculating here, but how extraordinary!
What are your thoughts?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Today
Today I am looking at my relationship with God.
The emphasis for our student ministry this year is "One." We are striving toward becoming unified in our purpose as believers, in becoming the body of Christ. "One" is also our theme this year for Disciple Now and for Camp. We are truly making a concerted effort at becoming one.
The first step in that process is being a believer, having an intimate relationship with God. The key is on the relationship. We've been looking at improving our relationship with God, studying prayer and Bible study, looking at scripture that advocate and teach us about both.
I'm not writing about that, though. I'm looking at my own relationship with God. How can I teach it unless I really have it? How can I encourage my students in theirs if mine is off even a little?
This blog is taking an interesting turn. When I started, I had no intention of mentioning this next part. I recently picked up the book "Twilight." I know that many people are not fiction readers, but I just can't help myself. I was not immediately drawn to this book, mostly because I thought it was a teenage romance novel. I'm not at all drawn to most love stories, I think they're too predictable and fake. I'm also not very sentimental, preferring instead the sharp bite of sarcasm and cynicism. This book, however is different. I won't go into detail except to say that the two characters sacrifice and struggle so much with their relationship, because they want it to continue. They give up things they are naturally drawn to. They hurt physically and emotionally because of the choices they make to be together.
I bring this up not because of some deep theological truth, the book is just a book and I'm probably more juvenile than I would like to admit for having read it in the first place. I bring it up because I'm not like those characters very much. When things get difficult I naturally withdraw, not seeking to cause myself any pain or discomfort.
I wonder what it would be like to truly pursue God with this kind of passion, with this kind of drive, concerning myself not with my pain, but with my objective, not Heaven, but God himself.
Isn't that what our pursuit should be like? Isn't that what Jesus did? Isn't that the path the Peter, John, and Paul took? I think the point is that the motivation does not come from within. We can't muster up that kind of passion if we try. The motivation must be external, pulling us irresistibly toward the prize. I know that sounds a little Calvinistic, but oh well.
Wow, this got a bit long and a bit weird. Welcome to the mind of Carl.
The emphasis for our student ministry this year is "One." We are striving toward becoming unified in our purpose as believers, in becoming the body of Christ. "One" is also our theme this year for Disciple Now and for Camp. We are truly making a concerted effort at becoming one.
The first step in that process is being a believer, having an intimate relationship with God. The key is on the relationship. We've been looking at improving our relationship with God, studying prayer and Bible study, looking at scripture that advocate and teach us about both.
I'm not writing about that, though. I'm looking at my own relationship with God. How can I teach it unless I really have it? How can I encourage my students in theirs if mine is off even a little?
This blog is taking an interesting turn. When I started, I had no intention of mentioning this next part. I recently picked up the book "Twilight." I know that many people are not fiction readers, but I just can't help myself. I was not immediately drawn to this book, mostly because I thought it was a teenage romance novel. I'm not at all drawn to most love stories, I think they're too predictable and fake. I'm also not very sentimental, preferring instead the sharp bite of sarcasm and cynicism. This book, however is different. I won't go into detail except to say that the two characters sacrifice and struggle so much with their relationship, because they want it to continue. They give up things they are naturally drawn to. They hurt physically and emotionally because of the choices they make to be together.
I bring this up not because of some deep theological truth, the book is just a book and I'm probably more juvenile than I would like to admit for having read it in the first place. I bring it up because I'm not like those characters very much. When things get difficult I naturally withdraw, not seeking to cause myself any pain or discomfort.
I wonder what it would be like to truly pursue God with this kind of passion, with this kind of drive, concerning myself not with my pain, but with my objective, not Heaven, but God himself.
Isn't that what our pursuit should be like? Isn't that what Jesus did? Isn't that the path the Peter, John, and Paul took? I think the point is that the motivation does not come from within. We can't muster up that kind of passion if we try. The motivation must be external, pulling us irresistibly toward the prize. I know that sounds a little Calvinistic, but oh well.
Wow, this got a bit long and a bit weird. Welcome to the mind of Carl.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The World Will Probably Not End Tomorrow
Today is November 4, election day in the United States and the day that our next President will be chosen. I occasionally listen to political talk radio. Because I live in small town East Texas, all that it on is Conservative talk radio, but I've heard some of the same sentiment in the past from less Conservative media outlets.
Depending on who is leading in different polling samples, I've heard one party or the other say that they were terrified about the future of this country and even scared for their own lives. I've heard the big-city liberals question the intelligence levels of people in red states and I've heard small-town conservatives attack blue staters as being intellectual snobs and communists.
I just wanted to say that the world will probably not end tomorrow, no matter who wins the election, and even if it does, it will have no relation at all to the presidential election. I've learned that God doesn't opperate within our frame of reference. God does not base his decisions on human events or understanding. Also, God doesn't really support one political party or the other. God is God, he is above such things. He is the one who allows governments and potentates in the first place.
All of us who are believers need to not trust in the state anyway. God is our God. We need to not depend on the government for anything. Believers are supposed to change the world. We complain about the course our nation is on, but don't lift a finger to make it better. How can it be better, you ask? We must love our brother, look after our neighbor, and generally be kind people. We must seek ways to share God's love in a loving manner, speaking the truth not in anger, but in love.
How do I know the world won't end tomorrow? I don't, but I suspect. In Matthew 24:14 Jesus tells us that the gospel will be preached around the world as a testimony to all the nations and then the end will come. In my mind, that leaves little time to squabble and argue about temporal things and instead make our lives about spreading the love of God.
Depending on who is leading in different polling samples, I've heard one party or the other say that they were terrified about the future of this country and even scared for their own lives. I've heard the big-city liberals question the intelligence levels of people in red states and I've heard small-town conservatives attack blue staters as being intellectual snobs and communists.
I just wanted to say that the world will probably not end tomorrow, no matter who wins the election, and even if it does, it will have no relation at all to the presidential election. I've learned that God doesn't opperate within our frame of reference. God does not base his decisions on human events or understanding. Also, God doesn't really support one political party or the other. God is God, he is above such things. He is the one who allows governments and potentates in the first place.
All of us who are believers need to not trust in the state anyway. God is our God. We need to not depend on the government for anything. Believers are supposed to change the world. We complain about the course our nation is on, but don't lift a finger to make it better. How can it be better, you ask? We must love our brother, look after our neighbor, and generally be kind people. We must seek ways to share God's love in a loving manner, speaking the truth not in anger, but in love.
How do I know the world won't end tomorrow? I don't, but I suspect. In Matthew 24:14 Jesus tells us that the gospel will be preached around the world as a testimony to all the nations and then the end will come. In my mind, that leaves little time to squabble and argue about temporal things and instead make our lives about spreading the love of God.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Refreshing
My faith in civil debate has been restored, at least a little bit. I was flipping through the channels a few moments ago and came across the Mike Huckabee show on Fox News. I didn't really know a lot about Huckabee and wasn't really clear on what he believed. My respect level for him rose a great deal after watching a segment of his show.
The actor Richard Dreyfuss was his guest and they carried on a civil discussion about civics. It was Dreyfuss' position and I agree that there needs to be a greater discussion about the history of this nation and the responsibility of all its citizens to take part in the process. I think that people have been discouraged to do this because they get shouted down by people who disagree with them. I think that people don't debate topics because they don't know how to think. Because of this, they feel they must yell louder to get their point across. Dreyfuss feels we need to educate our children and ourselves so that we can carry on civil debates about important topics.
Putting this theory to test was Huckabee in his next segment. Huckabee, a devout Christian, interviewed Bill Maher, decidedly not a Christian. Though they disagreed vehemently, neither of them raised their voices once. They were able to speak in a civilized manner even though they were polar opposites. This exchange encouraged me greatly that people can disagree and not shoot each other. What a refreshing thought.
I think this should be looked at more closely. I personally don't watch or listen to shows where either the interviewer or the interviewee yell because they disagree. In my experience, yelling doesn't change the fact that I'm wrong. Being louder than the other person is no way to win an argument. Hurling insults and one-liners is no way to influence people. Let's be thoughtful and civil. Let's learn how to engage one another in debate even if we disagree.
The actor Richard Dreyfuss was his guest and they carried on a civil discussion about civics. It was Dreyfuss' position and I agree that there needs to be a greater discussion about the history of this nation and the responsibility of all its citizens to take part in the process. I think that people have been discouraged to do this because they get shouted down by people who disagree with them. I think that people don't debate topics because they don't know how to think. Because of this, they feel they must yell louder to get their point across. Dreyfuss feels we need to educate our children and ourselves so that we can carry on civil debates about important topics.
Putting this theory to test was Huckabee in his next segment. Huckabee, a devout Christian, interviewed Bill Maher, decidedly not a Christian. Though they disagreed vehemently, neither of them raised their voices once. They were able to speak in a civilized manner even though they were polar opposites. This exchange encouraged me greatly that people can disagree and not shoot each other. What a refreshing thought.
I think this should be looked at more closely. I personally don't watch or listen to shows where either the interviewer or the interviewee yell because they disagree. In my experience, yelling doesn't change the fact that I'm wrong. Being louder than the other person is no way to win an argument. Hurling insults and one-liners is no way to influence people. Let's be thoughtful and civil. Let's learn how to engage one another in debate even if we disagree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
