6 posts tagged “discipleship”

I went to services on Sunday morning & it was a good thing, as i needed to hear the text that was being preached: "Deny your self, pick up your cross daily, and follow me." Nothing against the good man whose responsibility it was to bring the message, but my mind hit into overdrive and most of everything i had ever learned when in the ministry about this passage came flooding inside my mind.I've been thinking about it even more over the last couple of days.

It is almost impossible to hear a good sermon on this topic, mostly because American preachers either, a) land a God sized guilt trip with this passage, emphasizing a radical individualism or, b) illustrate just how well the congregation has done in this area, and in the process democratizes the Kingdom of God.

I have been in Church services since before i was born, literally, and there are things i have never heard preached on ever. I have never ever, except the few times i tried my hand at it in youth group (where they looked at me as if i'd lost my mind because who wants to hear this when your young and full of piss and vinegar?) did anyone cover what it meant to the those ruled by the iron fist of Rome.

Three things popped into my mind: 1) alienation and estrangement, 2) political subversion, and 3) tension maintenance. If you were crucified in the ancient Roman world, it meant you were an alien and a stranger, someone who was not a citizen. You were considered to be a second class citizen, without the right of due process. There was a reason why crucifixion happened outside the city gates -- it was to make death that much more a lonely and hopeless experience because it cut you off from a ethnic or communal identity. It also meant you were considered an enemy of the State. Crucifixion was reserved for those who rebelled against Roman authority, although others who threatened the established order, such as thieves of private property and murderers. The crucified was almost always a threat to the established political order. Lastly, this passage means a tension few could be able to live their lives in. Think about a prisoner on death row, who has to steel themselves to their fate, knowing they are going to die. There have been rare occurrences in the past where the method of execution has not only failed once, but several times. Can you imagine someone who has survived multiple execution attempts, how much tension must have been ratcheted up during each

2-11 25 Minutes To Go

Although their is individual application to this passage, i believe the implication is far more communal than individual. Until i found MercyHouse, I had never attended a Church body who was not fully comfortable in the culture around them. I had never attended a community of faith who said they were members of the kingdom of God first and Americans second. I had never attended a group that has consistently, everyday, expected each individual that made up their community to live counter culture to both the political ideologies of Left and Right and the cultural expectations they were raised in. Part of the legacy of the Second Great Awakening (or the Great American Counter Reformation) is a reconciliation of Christianity, culture, and politics, and Pentecostals/Evangelicals are especially guilty of cultural accommodation.

This is glaringly opposed to the early Church. Holding true to Church Liturgy meant being branded as cannibals (the body and blood of Messiah); Christian community meant being labeled as incestuous (brothers and sisters in Christ); believing that God was Three yet One earned the name atheist (Christians no longer sacrificed to the local deities); and calling Messiah Jesus by Caesar's title "Lord" meant the possibility of a literal cross to carry as an enemy of the State. Christian morality has always revolved around people being made in the image of God and thinking that as Christians they were dead men (and women) walking. Christian morality has traditionally been viewed as without rhyme or reason by the culture surrounding the Kingdom. Christians have always acted morally by opposing abortion by adopting, ditto for saving babies left to die of exposure (mostly girl babies), by giving their lives away to die taking care of plague victims, by staying as man and wife in cultures that have practiced polygamy, and by doing the same and risking the wrath of an effeminent elite, especially in Rome (You try telling Nero that man was made for woman and woman for man and see how fast you'd be on fire to light his dinner party).

It is hard to think of yourself as a convicted political subversive with a daily death sentence hanging over your head. Yet can one follow Christ, Messiah Jesus, without at least a partial awareness of this call?

PS if any of you know a better blog location than Vox, let me know. I am so tired of not being able to download audio files that i about can't stand it.

Leave it to the field of 8 to blow up my bracketts. 0-2 yesterday. Groan. My champion team, Florida is still in the hunt, and G'Town may still make it into the Final Four. Kansas and Memphis bit the dust and suddenly i'm glad i didn't get a chance to blow my $20.

So The Wife went to Boston with a friend, and i have to be at work by 6:00 PM. I'm bringing the ole computer, as i think it will be a bit slower than a normal Sunday shift. I wanted too get started on the books i need for my two Sunday classes, but the library that actually had em closed early today. Gonna have to go after them tomorrow morning.

I missed services this AM; i was too tired to get outta bed. When The Wife has a tough night sleeping, so do i. And when she is unhappy, she is willing and able to efficiently spred the misery around to those in the immediate surroundings.

I have been thinking about existentialism and free will and Reformed theology. Luther and Calvin did not believe that people have the ability to chose to serve God freely, as original sin constrained their will to choose freely only for themselves. I happen to believe this as well -- the spiritualy dead are dead, and unless God makes them live again... On the other hand, everyone, regardless of how the relate to God, make a hundred and one free choices every day. No one has a gun to their head when they order at McDs, or when they dress themselves in the morning. Even when working for some dink fast food place or being CEO of a multinational, people decide whether to be honest or not as no gunman have their kids or parents hostage in the basement to force them to do anything. Yet can people make decisions that are not consistent with their temperment or character or upbringing? Sometimes people do make decisions that are contray, but this is the rare exception to the rule. If sin has twisted humanity, to varying degrees, and inverted them to place themselves before anything or anyone else, can their be feedom of the will in choosing to serve the One they are in rebellion against? I don't think so.

I know that i decided to follow Christ. However, how did i make that decision without God changing me first? I do believe that this is a matter of subjective perspectives: on this side of heaven the writting over the gate reads, 'Whosoever will, come,' and from the other side when we look back it'll say, 'You didn't choose me, I chose you.' I do know this stuff makes you think, and if your Reformed, it should make you humble.

I came home from work the other day, yes, at 2 Am, and couldn't get to sleep. The Wife was at the house with the dogs, but she was sick and I just walked to the apartment. I turned on the tube and the movie A History of Violence was on HBO.

I had wanted to see the movie, I like Vittgo whatshisface from Lord of the Rings, so I thought why not? What a strange movie this was! Whoever wrote this, and whoever directed this has never ever had to defend themselves physically. I think what they were trying to get at is that even if used cautiously, the use of violence changes the people involved, and not for the better.

I won't bore you all with the plot, needless to say there is a body count. The main character "Tom" was an ex-mobster who had renounced violence and settled into a Norman Rockwell kinda existence. His wife was beautiful and had a healthy appetite for sex, his kids were good kids, and he owned a small dinner. Two hoods come in one night and threaten to rape his waitress and kill the rest, and "tom" kills them. His boy, afterwords, finally stands up for himself against a school bully and kicks the bully's ass. Thru the publicity a mobster recognizes him (with a little help from "Tom's" brother) and he eventually has to kill him, the people with him, and then go to Philly and kill his brother. His wife loves him, but doesn't know how to handle that she didn't know his real name or that his life story was made up. They make very violent love before he leaves to meet his brother, which is contrasted by their loving and kind sex scene they had at the beginning of the movie. His name's really Joey, and when he comes back home we find that his kids accept him back but his wife, when he looks into her eyes, doesn't love him anymore.

I didn't like this movie because the writer had no idea of the reality of living in this fallen world, there was such a disconnect that made this movie an impossiblity for ever happening in some real person's life. Yes, actions have reactions, there is cause and effect. The use of violence is not something that doesn't leave its imprint upon all involved. However, I contend that violence is a necessary evil.

Jesus was violent, altho gentle and humble. He struck and lashed people when He cleared the Temple Court and overturned the money-changer's tables. He did it not to defend Himself, but for the honor of the Father and in protest to the oppression of the poor. He was non-violent when He would not allow Peter to defend Him when it came time for Him to be arrested and eventually put to death. These two circumstances have informed my personal philosophy of violence, as I have always been prepared to stick up physically for the weak when they suffer the tyranny of evil men (a pulp fiction reference for those keeping score at home) while at other times chosing to nonviolently shame people who would attack me.

I myself have a history of violence. When i was a kid I was so sick I died. But only for a minute or so. My thyroid had gone bonkers, and they put me under when they tried to take out the tonsils they thought were making me sick. I was very skinny and weak, and just about everyone for a couple of years had been picking on me. There was not one day during that time when I was not in some way, to varying degrees, physically assulted. So I started, once I received some treatment, at the bottom with the weakest kid who picked on me. I beat the shit outta him, and then moved on up the ladder of the High School social hierarchy. I finally fought to a draw the most popular and strongest kid in the class, and I have had very few opportunites since to ever have to fight with someone again. But I was in so many fights that year I came very close to being suspended.

I fought for one reason at first: my own survival. It was fight or shrivel up and die inside. But it turned into something else by the time I faced the main bully. I wasn't the only one who was bullied, and to stand up to these people was to stand up for us all. Me fighting upset the status quo of victim and victimizer, and set a dangerous precident that made the popular and the strong wary. It was from this experience that I developed my philosophy about the use of violence as I became a much more committed and discipled Christian.

I found I had to repent for a couple of those fights, to go back and to try to make things right. The rage in me was born of a thousand and one undeserved humiliations, and led me to vengance instead of justice. Punishment for wrongdoing is up to God, I should have fought only to balnce the scales, to put myself on an even plane. I could have done this a couple of times and would not have had to use physical violence, but my anger was such that I sinned. As a matter of fact, 99.9% of every altercation I had after these events fell into this catagory. I now believe it is the credible threat of violence that is more important than violence itself. More than one person has looked into my eyes and have seen what the immediate future would hold if they continued on their present course....

I also have found that I don't much care anymore abought slights or insults to me. I find that caring for others and protecting people who really are in no position to help themselves is much better than fighting for one's self. After 9/11 a couple of college kids (who thankfully turned out to be drunk) wanted to go out and beat the first Muslim they found. There were three of them in the line to get pizza when i stood in front of them and told them I was Muslim, did they wanna start with me? Earlier in the day a friend of ours, a Muslim woman, had taken off her headcovering and brought her co-workers a cake with American flag icing because she had recieved a lot of grief in town from schmucks like these guys. It made my wife cry to see the fear in this woman and her daughter, and it made me very angry. The guys in the line, they backed down. Hopefully it gave them pause and made them wary to victimize people.

I love the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King, but make no mistake, his campaigns were designed to be conrontational and to MAKE people change the status quo against their wills. Non-violent cohersion is the best route, much more perferable than physical confrontation. But I think there is room for physically standing up to your enemies for your enemies sake, to stop them from damning their souls more. But this is just the rambling of some middle aged guy, so my opinion probably won't count for all that much.

As a matter of fact, the only reason I'm on this topic is because earlier to day someone went left on red where it was clearly posted that there was no turn on red and I nearly hit the witless wonder. I had a flash of anger as I laid on my horn and fipped him off. I thought how nice it would be to pull him from the cab of his pickup and pound him into the pavement, therapy for the bad day that has been mine for the last 5 years. And then the Spirit, as He usually does, gently reminded me of who and whose I am, and that I needed to deal with my anger as it sure wasn't a righteous anger or those actions for the other driver's good. It was just me being a prick. I'm glad the second week of Advent is about repentance...

So here we are, the Wife and I, in a house in the country with two dogs. For the month of December anyway. I can now pronounce myself cured of ever wanting to be a dog owner. I had thought it might be cool to have a dog, but after walking Dixie and Maggie, washing them up, and feeding them daily I hereby renounce the desire. There is dog hair every where and it isn't just marriage that ties you down -- its almost like having kids.

It makes me wonder about the paradox of success: the more successful one is, the less "free" they are. At least in my definition of freedom. Work is pretty much a necessary evil, and altho I agree with Paul that if ya don't work ya don't eat, I also don't agree with our culture that work is a major part of our identity. I work to get health care, money to pay the bills, and to carve out some time to read and write, the thing I really like to do. The more you make, the more the responsibility, the heavier the workload. A house means $ and time; taxes and maintenance and probably some more money. My philosophy is this: there are renters and owners, and I KNOW which one I am. I actually feel pity for the inanimate objects I own just on the basis of whats gonna happen to em. My ipod was shiny and unscratched till it left the box the day I bought it.

I want the freedom to choose what bounaries to bind myself to; Paul said one is either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness and since we have been given the freedom to choose, the power of the Spirit to give our will power over our bodies (Rom. 6), freedom for me is the ability to actually have a chance to do battle to do something right, to try to follow the example of Christ.

I realize this is not the template of freedom for everyone. Tempermentally and philosophically, there are people who are owners and can handle the job, the car, the house, and the investment portfloio without compromising their commitment to Christ. I am in awe of folks like that, but am thru of wishing I was them. I am who I am, who childhood, experience, enviornment, temperment, and the Spirit of God has made me. But I have a hard time managing those temorary riches and the stress and responsibilities that accompany them -- the whole ownership thing sure isn't me.

I walked the dogs this morning, am doing my blog, will be doing my morning Office next, and its work at 11:00 AM. I have a lot of work for school to do, and all I did last night was merge with the TV and watch --- hmmmm can't quite remember what I watched, actually. Let's just say that I was not involved in my usual active listening and watching technique,  all I really wanted to do was just vegge out... and I'm gonna pay the price.  I hate that any type of routine I had was tied into where I slept. Changing location interupted the  whole living routine, and I haven't quite established a new one yet.

Oh look -- one of the dogs just thrw up and is now eating their meal again... ewwwwwwwww.

And really, I was having such a good day....

Until I read a story on the front page of The New York Times (10/6/06, Fearing the Loss of Teenagers, Evangelicals Turn Up the Fire, by Laurie Goodstien) about Ron Luce's "Aqire the Fire" arena rallies. Sigh. I used to be a Evangelical Pentecostal youth pastor who was forced, this short of at gunpoint, to take my youth group to those very same arena youth rallies. Just when I thought I was out....

I thought something was up about a month ago when I was thumbing thru a "Christianity Today" magazine and I ran across a full page advertisement that proclaimed a call to action for all Christians who worked with young people, as only 4% of young Christians were projected to keep their faith into adulthood. I noticed 'ole Ron was part of the avertisement and flashed back to the mid-90s, when his chief motivational statistic was that 88% of American teens did not go to church while of the 12% that did, 88% fell away from their faith after they graduated High School. Which may be just another way of saying only 4% of American teens carry their faith with them into adulthood. The answer, of course, was to launch another national areana crusade headed up by Ron "Aquire the Fire" Luce.

This statistic is debatable, to say the least. Goodstein dug a little and came up with the source of this statictic: "The 4 percent is cited in the book "Bridger Generation" by Thom S. Rainer, a Southern Baptist and a formewr professor of ministry. Mr. Rainer said in an interview that it came from a poll he comissioned, and that while he thought the methodology was reliable, the poll was ten years old. 'I would have to, with integrity, say there has been no significant follow-up to see if the numbers are still valid,' Mr. Rainer said." Ten years old!?

What drives me insane is that no one, not Ron Luce, not any of the nationally recognized pastors that are supporting this crusade, not even the kids themselves are calling for the real solution, which would simply be discipleship. This is the scandle of Evangelicalism, even more than the Evangelical mind, altho anti-intellectualism is a problem. Discipleship is being taught and mentored by someone commited to walking the same path as you at the same time. It is not a 9 week course, or a sunday school class lasting a quarter, or a department in the organizational structure of a megachurch. It is a lost art in North America because it is counter-intuitive to most Americans. We say we want greater involvement in a community of faith, but we are inbred individualists in reality. We only let whom we want into our personal space, at we really don't want other people messing in our kitchens, knowing us where we live.

Basically all Luce or any other nationally known ministry is offering is an alternative culture, a pale reflection of American popular culture which doesn't in anyway challenge the presuppositions and assumptions of that pop culture. In the article a author, who is a committed secularist, noticed this and commented on the weakness of this position. In researching for her new book about Evangelical youth culture, she noted that the youth ministries that were most effective, those that actually alarmed her the most, were those who were not confined to a building's four walls and who had a firm doctrinal basis.

I get a little angry because of the almost total absence of discipleship. That lack has taken a huge toll on myself and my immediate family. There are consequences to things, consequences that are very stark and final. So OK, this has been my rant....

II was thinking while at work last night, which is hardly ever good, I realize (But like a moth drawn to the flame, or a lemming to the sea...), about when Jesus sent out His disciples 2 by 2 to preach the Kingdom

Ever have those day dreams where your doing something you wish you could do but know will never, ever, in a million years happen? I was imagining myself addressing the 20 year college class reunion of my Bible college from behind the pulpit in chapel. Yup, things were pretty slow at the Circle K last night. What would I want to say to the people who graduated with me, to the students there now, and to the faculty and staff?

When Jesus sent out His disciples, they were sent out to "church" people, not pagan Gentiles. Jesus sent them out among their own, to people who prayed to the same God, read the same Scripture, sang the same Psalms, attended the same synagogues, sacriced at the same Temple, and attended the same calandar of fast and feast days. Israel wasn't, in the 1st century, a modern nation state. They were two tribes and a conglomeration of the other ten that had survived war and exile. It was a kinship group, a gathering of clans, and everyone was pretty close to being related to everyone else.

Yet Jesus sent them out as "sheep among wolves." That isn't very flattering, to say the least. Jesus told them to expect persecution, contempt, imprisonment, and even death, that families would be torn asunder in choosing sides. The kicker, of course, was Jesus didn't say "if," He said "when." What was the message that would lead to this kind of violence? It was simply the good news that the Kingdom of God had come in the person of Jesus, that the little and the last and the least and the lost were all welcome by grace. I think the message was the Beatitudes... That any who entered thru the narrow gate of death to self was considered to be part of the Kingdom.

It all comes down to Power, doesn't it? Either we submit and and admit that we are powerless, catastrophically poor, morally and spiritually bankrupt, or we try to gain, consolidate, and expand our control over our own lives. The Jews chose to go to war with Rome rather than go the extra mile and forgive her enemies; they chose tempral power over trust in God. But let's not just pick on the Jews. How many times have those who claimed Christ taken up arms in order to gain power? People are the same -- they all want security, warmth, shelter, food, sex, and love and are willing to manipulate and kill to attain them rather than wait for God's Providence.

Is it not the same today? Paul wrote to the Corinthian Church to stay away from people who were engaged in these same type of sins. When asked for clarification, Paul said he wasn't talking about people outside of the Church, but those inside the Church. As a pastor in an Assembly of God Church for almost twelve years, I'm here to say, in my humble opinion, that only about 25% to 30% of any congregation I served was converted. The rest had had an intense religios/spiritual experience, had prayed the sinners prayer, and hadn't changed their minds about anything, especially about in how they were going to live. What changed was the way they talked, the people they hung out with, and they began to formulate ways to manipulate God into either attaining the control they desired or for God to justify them as they did what they had to do to attain what they desired. They quickly picked up on "Christianese," they began to socialize within a church setting, and they began to formulate individualistic "Christian" doctrine.They were not converted, they were enculturated.

And so it continues, the lambs being led to the slaughter within the religious community. They are everywhere evident in the Church visible, in the pews, behind the pulpit, in the sunday school classroom, or in any of the "outreach" programs a church may have. The irony is that they can be pretty decent people, that is until you challenge them right where they refused to be challenged, that of giving up their lives to gain them. If this is done, then Katie-bar-the-door, baby! I've seen lawsuits threatened, intimidation, lying, manipulation, embezzlment, deception, and just out-and-out anger. But there is no other option -- the converted, by their very newly created nature, is drawn into conflict with those who are driven by their sinful nature. 99.9% of all Church conflicts are conflicts of this nature, and are often conflicts between two unconverted people using godtalk to support their positions!

That, my friends, would be the sermon I'd preach at my 20 year reunion at my Alma Matter.