The 4 Fundamental Worldview Questions…

…according to Dallas Willard.  Feel free to give them a try…

1. What is Reality?
2. Who is Really Well-Off?
3. Who is Truly Good?
4. How Does One Become Truly Good?

Continuing the Conversation

Thanks for the great conversation Sunday regarding 1 Corinthians 12, our corporate formation, the discipline of celebrating differences, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  Reflecting on our time together, I simply want to post one of the amazingly provocative (and un-current) quotes from Bonhoeffer we looked at Sunday as well as his list of disciplines that community offers if we engage it consciously and intentionally.  I welcome and invite any thoughts these may stimulate…

“If we do not give thanks daily for the Christian fellowship we have been placed, even where there is no great experience, no discoverable riches, but much weakness, small faith, and difficulty; if, on the contrary, we only keep complaining to God that everything is so paltry and petty, so far from what we expected, then we hinder God from letting our fellowship grow according to the measure and riches which are there for us all in Jesus Christ.”

• The Discipline of Holding Ones Tongue (developing the habit of saying very little that comes to ones mind)
• The Discipline of Meekness (becoming aware of ones own shortcomings)
• The Discipline of Listening (harder and less practiced than we might think)
• The Discipline of Helpfulness (becoming able to bend our schedules for the unplanned)
• The Discipline of Bearing (bearing each others personalities – the whole personality)
• The Discipline of Proclaiming (speaking truth to each other – even when it’s hard)

We could easily have a sermon series on these disciplines, and maybe someday we will…

Continuing the Conversation

I love discussions about the conscience.  I find them to be amazingly provocative, and I believe the conscience is perhaps the most revealing issue pertaining to human nature, God, and morality.  I am thankful for Paul revealing the very difficult yet truthful reality that all communities are comprised of different consciences.  As I’ve shared the last two weeks, I am continually challenged by the idea that the primary task of the church is not to bring everyone’s conscience into conformity, but, rather, to practice humility by learning how to be aware of and serve each others conscience as we promote a healthy conscience individually and communally.  Convicting indeed.

May our community be marked by a seamlesssness between our knowing and our doing.  Amen.

Continuing the Conversation

This Sunday we tried to view Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7 through the lens of a first century “feminist”.  The overall goal was to authentically place ourselves within the social context of the Corinthian church in an effort to explore if there is a way to read Paul’s instructions regarding marriage and sexuality in a manner that doesn’t come across as derogatory regarding the institution as it may sound to contemporary ears.  

A closer examination of the first century church truly reveals a community that seriously and effectively redeemed the status of women and the idea of what marriage can and ought to be.  The underlying theme I walked away with is that virtuous living works and is, thereby, life affirming, contagious, healthy, and sustaining.

Continuing the Conversation

What a timely conversation Sunday (considering it’s Valentine’s Week) – Sex and Sexuality.  Once again our church is confidently declaring that sex is good and God given.  What I find most profound about our discussion Sunday, however, is the idea that God doesn’t simply give us this gift in order to encourage procreation, feel good, or “have a good time.”  It’s all of these things, of course, but it’s also more than that.  God gives us the amazing gift of sexuality in order to image his relationship with us.  A healthy sex life actually aids us in our understanding of who God is and specifically who he is in relation to us.  

Husbands and wives – encourage each other in your relationship with God by nurturing a healthy sex life (admittedly – not as easy as it sounds, but worthwhile work).

Continuing the Conversation

 Sunday we hosted a conversation regarding church discipline and wrestled with the tension involved in walking in two worlds yet being formed and shaped by only one.  This eventually led to the topic of accountability and the whole issue of accountability partners.  

I’ve often wondered if “accountability” is the best metaphor for our intentional relationships.  As noted Sunday, according to Websters on-line, accountability is “The system of recording and summarizing business and financial transactions and analyzing, verifying, and reporting the results.”  Although this works well in the business world, does it really translate to human relationships?  Are we not cultivating a climate that expects and looks for failure?  Is there another way to envision how we intentionally relate to one another?  

I love Joseph Meyer’s suggestion in his book Organic Community that we consider the metaphor of editing rather than accounting.  Think about it – while accountants look for problems to correct (a rather dehumanizing way to approach life), editors “help an author (person) toward richer communication – a rich, full voice that is free of encumbrances.  Accountants keep records.  Editors wipe away errors while keeping the voice of the author.”

Continuing the Conversation

Sunday we spoke further on Paul’s message of life in God’s Kingdom.  As he juxtaposes the way of the Cross to the way of the World he continually emphasizes the difference between humility and pride.  Among other things, we asked the question, “what does the prideful church look like?”  This is a worthy conversation.    

I have become intrigued by Paul’s metaphor in 1 Corinthians 5 of a “flat bread” church/a church without yeast to “puff it up.”  What would the “flat bread” church look like?  How would the “flat bread” church market itself?  

Here are some suggestions from our conversation Sunday:

• The flat bread church wouldn’t pretend to have the corner on truth.  Rather, it would be a student of truth.
• The flat bread church would face hard issues rather than bury its head.
• The flat bread church would be experts at getting along and not breaking fellowship in the name of individual preferences and opinions.
• The flat bread church recognizes the myth of universal agreement.  The key to their unity is humility – not agreement.

Here are some thoughts I had upon engaging in discussion with folks afterwards:

• We do need to move things forward and engage our communities, but there are ways to do that which foster agreement and unity rather than gossip and discord.  It’s not easy, but changing allegiances from one realm to the other is not an easy thing.
• We must remember that Paul’s instructions on humility are specifically directed to the church.  There is a standard God’s church is to live up to that is simply not possible in the broader world community.  
• One intuitively senses from Paul’s writing that there are differences between issues which call for humility and submission in the name of not breaking fellowship (i.e. covering women’s heads for worship) and issues that are immoral and need to be confronted (slavery).  Although it’s tempting to suggest these issues reveal themselves by simply using common sense, it must be admitted that in today’s society the church is often divided about which issues are tolerable and which need to be confronted (homosexuality).

Continuing the Conversation

Sunday we discussed the issue of pride in the church and how it contributes to division and factions. Paul’s consistent answer to this in 1 Corinthians is to learn to live in the way of “Christ Crucified”.  Living as Christ Crucified…hmmm…..  

As I wrestled with this topic all week I kept coming back to the question, “why do people leave churches (to find better churches/churches that fit them, etc.)?”  Although in our culture of choice and freedom we take it for granted that it’s virtuous to exercise our rights of choice whenever we see fit, I couldn’t help wondering if this pattern of living resembles American individualistic consumption more than “Christ Crucified”.  

The phrase “Christ Crucified” implies (to me at least) a way of life that involves difficulty, submission, humility, and perhaps even some suffering.  Yet if it’s through the church that we learn to live into this kind of life, is there not a tension inherent in the idea that we shop for churches that “fit” us the same way we shop for clothes?  

I certainly would never want to imply a static “rule” that it’s always wrong to change churches.  I just think we could benefit from taking the issue of Christ Crucified seriously as we look at various ways pride (the elevation of self at the expense of community/looking to one’s own interests before the interests of others) effects the church experience in our lives and culture.

Continuing the Conversation

We hosted a somewhat sociological as well as theological conversation Sunday at Beggars Table.  The issues centered around the “status” the church holds within the broader community.  Ultimately we asked the question, “historically why does the church seem to have the most influence when it is an alternative community in the margins rather than in a position of prestige, power, and popularity?”  

I so look forward to continuing this conversation that I hesitate to offer any “answers” we came up with Sunday.  Suffice it to say, however, that something about being in the margins allows the church to embody hope in a manner that prestige and popularity just don’t accommodate.

Important Words for a “Seatbelt Society” (and church)…

“The focus on safety has become so omnipresent in our chronically anxious civilization that there is real danger we will come to believe that safety is the most important value in life.  It is certainly important as a modifier of other initiatives, but if a society is to evolve, or if leaders are to arise, then safety can never be allowed to become more important than adventure. 

We are on our way to becoming a nation of ’skimmers,’ living off the risks of previous generations and constantly taking from the top without adding significantly to its essence.  Everything we enjoy as part of our advanced civilization, including the discovery, exploration, and development of our country, came about because previous generations made adventure more important than safety.”

                                                                              -Edwin Friedman