Monthly Archives: March 2005

The Intent Was Good…

1 Reply

Well, it doesn’t look like I’m going to have much time to write as much as I wanted to today, so, since I’ve gained several new subscribers the last couple of weeks, let me take the time to once again formally invite everyone to join my new forum at http://www.open-dialogue.com and add their bit to the numerous discussions there. Essentially, Open Dialogue is a forum geared toward Christian discussion of a wide variety of topics, all with the goal of (hopefully) shaping our thoughts more toward Christ. My hope is to share what we know and what we’re learning with one another,
exchange opinions, and just generally have a good time ‘talking’ and discussing. We could always use a few more voices, especially since it’s kind of difficult for me to discuss with myself (though I do try). So, hop on over for a chat. I’ll put the pot on to boil, and we can sit down over some tea and scones.

And hopefully, tomorrow, I’ll have a new thought or two to share.

Man, as a Spiritual Being

8 Replies

I have this theory.

In his book Insomnia, Stephen King describes a man who is able to see auras surrounding people. The color of the auras reflected the individuals’ moods and relative proximity to death. Additionally, the auras of people who were emotionally close would interweave, changing the overall colors of both
auras.

In the famous Enderseries, a scientific phenomenon is described. This phenomenon is something called a philote, a term coined by science fiction writer Orson Scott Card to describe theoretical rays or lines which have the size of a geometric point and possess no mass or inertia. Philotes make up all particles in the observable universe by combining or “twining”. This twining between loved ones binds them together, no matter how far apart they may be.

Nearly every major religion I can think of acknowledges that Man is a spiritual creature, that part of his being and nature is insubstantial. This spirit is the part that is believed to continue to exist eternally, long after the body has died and returned to dust.

I have heard stories of clairvoyance-like insight that a loved has just endured a life-threatening crisis. Or of the individual who knows the approximate state of a close friend or family member, no matter how far away they are.

What if there is some substance to the speculations of people like King and Card?

Have you ever found your mood altered to match someone else’s, simply by being near them? Have you ever passed someone on the street and felt substantially affected by them, however momentarily? Have you ever just looked at someone and somehow knew what they were
thinking, feeling, experiencing at that moment? Or been able to read their personality? Or gotten a general impression of their past? And then been astonished to find out your impressions were correct?

What about feeling bonded to someone, whether it be a loved one, a spouse, or a close friend? Close fellowship with others that goes way beyond just typical interactions, that extends into the spiritual and leaves a lasting impression on your core?

Larry Crabb, in his book Connecting,
talks about pouring oneself into another who is hurting in order to help heal the pain. It is a spiritual endeavor, the formation of a bond to provide strength and support to another during crisis.

My theory is this: I have come to believe that, while our spirit is perpetually linked to our physical selves, that it is not necessarily completely contained within our mortal bodies, that it
exceeds those borders and touches and intermingles with everyone and everything around us. From personal experience, I have been touched and affected by things and people in inexplicable ways, even though many of those encounters have been cursory at best. I also
have to wonder if we don’t leave a part of our spirits with those we love most, or if maybe our spirits are stretched in a way as to be continually linked to them. In no way do I believe that we have the capability of spiritual omnipresence, but I do wonder if our spirits have a greater capability of connection and perception than we give them credit for. I know that God has given me a gift of perception and insight, for being able to quickly and accurately see what is going on inside people. Often, that insight comes more as intuition than by direct observation, and I have to wonder if my spirit is mingling with that person, thereby providing me with information.

It’s a fascinating theory to me, and I see evidence that says it might be at least somewhat legitimate.

Seeing Both Sides of the Argument

3 Replies

Why is it that a person cannot talk about both the pros and cons of an issue without being perceived as taking the opposite side as everyone else? (And yes, this does involve that person being seen as supporting either side, depending on what position every other person holds.)

By the way, churches and Christians are not immune to this sort of behavior.

Christianity Gone Political

7 Replies

Here’s another definition:

fundamentalism [fəndəmentəlɪzəm, fəndəmenəlɪzəm]
A noun

1 fundamentalism

the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth


Category Tree:

I mentioned in my previous post how the word ‘evangelical’ gets thrown around by the general populace as something of a curse word (and again, here, based on the definition above, I would consider myself a fundamentalist). I was reminded today that the word ‘fundamentalist’ gets the same treatment. (See this thread and this quote — “ Yeah, the parallels between recent fundamentalist Christian pushes for legislation on private matters on behalf of society and hisba are reasonable to draw…” — for examples.)

There are two reasons, I think, why this is the case. The first is that we, as Christians, continually face the scorn of the world for our “close-minded” and unbending beliefs. Christ told us that we would be hated and persecuted by the world for our beliefs, and I think that, to some extent, we are seeing that in daily life. However, I don’t want to focus on this reason, primarily because there is nothing we can do about it except face it with grace, patience, and
compassion, sharing our beliefs with all who will listen. Rather, I want to focus on a second reason why the word ‘fundamental’ has become such a bitter taste in the mouths of our peers.

It seems to me that both the words ‘evangelical’ and ‘fundamental’ carry as much political significance as they do religious. To a point I think there is a place for this, but by the same token, I think we also have to ask ourselves how political we should be. What I mean is this — I have watched Christians and politicians alike push for legislation that essentially forces our religious beliefs on the nation at large, and I have come to believe that maybe that’s not such
a good thing. For example, take the Terry Schiavo case. I’m all for the preservation of and the right to life. What troubles me is this recent move by the Congress to subvert the judicial system by making a law that is specific to Terry alone (at least as I understand it). As much as I would love to see Terry’s family win this case, I’m not convinced that this kind of special treatment is helpful, especially when other significant issues are being ignored. And what I’m hearing from certain corners is that this is yet another move by ‘fundamentalist Christians’ to exert their will upon the public, and the tone is one of anger, hatred, and bitterness. This does not help us to share the Gospel.

I’m not saying, though, that Christians should not be involved in politics. Quite the contrary, actually. I believe that Christians should be very active in politics, but that we should choose
our involvements wisely. One place that I personally refuse to back down is on the subject of abortion. I truly believe that abortion of all forms should be illegal because of the number of human lives lost each and every year. I know that in taking this stance, I am labelled cynically as ‘evangelical’ and ‘fundamentalist’, but it’s a ‘burden’ I’m willing to bear and carry because I believe it is truly right and good. (Frankly, I see it as more of an ethical issue than religious one.) There are some places, though, that I must part ways with others of like faith because I believe theirs is an abuse of the system.

There is a statement that I have heard come up in many political/religious discussions regarding personal and civil rights. The statement goes something like this: “Your rights end where mine begin.” Now, just because this statement orginated from an unbeliever does not necessarily mean that it is incorrect. It’s something that I have taken with a grain of salt, but the more I think about it, the more I’m inclined to agree with it. (At the very least, I’ve yet to think of a single exception to that rule.) Here’s my rationale: The United States was founded upon the rights of every man to worship God as he sees fit (even if it means not worshipping God at all). To that end, our laws have been established in such a way as to give every man free reign within reasonable limits) to do so. When one religious movement or another attempts to insert legislation to force certain religious beliefs on everyone else, that threatens those rights inherent to the foundation of this great nation. This is why I think sometimes churches and Christians are wrong to push for particular bills and laws. It seems to me that fundamental
Christianity should be involved in politics only to the point of preserving the basic civil rights upon which this country was founded. Leave the role of winning souls to Christ to the church,
to evangelism, to individual encounters with real, live people. We aren’t going to win the Kingdom through politics. We can only do that by showing personal compassion and love to those around us.

—————————–

I realize that post these posts may seem a little bit radical, and I welcome discussion on them. Please feel free to post comments here, but I have also posted them at Open Dialogue, so I would definitely welcome further, in depth discussion there.

—————————–

Update: Based on Joel’s comment, I opted to do a little further research, and here’s what I found:

fun·da·men·tal·ism (fŭn’də-mĕn‘tl-ĭz’əm) pronunciation
n.


  1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
    1. often Fundamentalism
      An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
    2. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

fun’da·men‘tal·ist adj. & n.
fun’da·men’tal·ist‘ic adj.

And further:

A group protesting “modernist” tendencies in the churches circulated a 12-volume publication called The Fundamentals (1909–12), in which five points of doctrine were set forth as
fundamental: the Virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Jesus, the infallibility of the Scriptures, the substitutional atonement, and the physical second coming of Christ.

And from here (backing up what Joel stated):

“Fundamentalist” is a term that is frequently bandied about in the news media these days. Unfortunately, this term has been used so casually in describing anyone who seems to hold some sort of traditional religious belief-be they a Bible Baptist TV preacher, a Hasidic rabbi, a Mormon housewife, or a soldier of the Islamic Jihad-that the word has become nearly useless.

And you can read more here.

I think I prefer the ‘five points’ definition over the original one cited above. There’s a whole lot more interesting stuff to read at each of those sites.

What Does It Really Mean To Be ‘Evangelical’?

5 Replies

It occurred to me over this past weekend to wonder what it really means to be ‘evangelical’? I overheard a couple of individuals (who were obviously not Christians) talking about different
kinds of Christians and what they stood for, and they threw the word ‘evangelical’ around like it was a swear word. It made me wonder what the word really meant and whether or not it means the same thing in today’s culture. So, I looked it up on this website, and this is what I found:

evangelical [i:vænʒelɪkəl]
A adjective
1 evangelical
relating
to or being a Christian church believing in personal conversion and the
inerrancy of the Bible especially the 4 Gospels; “evangelical
Christianity”; “an ultraconservative evangelical message”
2 evangelical
of or pertaining to or in keeping with the Christian gospel especially as in the first 4 books of the New Testament
3 evangelical, evangelistic
marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause

As these definitions stand here, I see little trouble in accepting the term ‘evangelical’ as accurate and correct. I would even consider myself an evangelical Christian.

Here is where I think the problem lies. Look at the second example in the first definition: “an ultraconservative evangelical message.” I don’t have a problem with the example itself, per se. However, one word stands out to me as the place where we as Christians have problems in relating to the world around us — conservative. I believe we need to be conservative as far as preserving truth goes. However, in our practices, I think Christians sometimes have swung so far to the extreme as to no longer be conservative. Instead, so many of our churches have become legalistic, even Pharisaical. This is the real rub with those we are trying to win
to Christ. As evangelicals we strive to preach the Gospel, to share the hope that is within us. But as legalists we are harsh and cruel and judgmental. We strive so hard to preserve the
truth, to preserve the facts of our faith that we forget the human element. We forget that we
are also supposed to be compassionate and caring and sensitive. I hear a lot of gossip in our churches, a lot of judgment, and I see a lot of anger and bitterness and strife — with each other! We see the sin and faults of our brothers and sisters (and of the world around us), and we pass judgment on them and distance ourselves from them. And I fear that in this process we have damaged our testimony in such a way that it’s no wonder we find ourselves faced
with so much cynicism from the world.

Of course, I realize this is not the case with all Christians or even all churches. But the trouble is that it is so much easier to see the bad than the good, and so those of us who strive to live like Christ are overshadowed by those who think they are living like Christ but who are, in actuality, living like the very Pharisees whom He condemned. Christ said that we would be hated by the world, that we would be persecuted by it, but I see the Church bringing so much of that condemnation upon itself because of what some are doing that undermines our work. I myself struggle with a cynical attitude toward so many Christians and churches, and I have to wonder, if I struggle with this while I am part of the Body, how much more do those who are without struggle with seeing their need for this Christ whom we so poorly represent?

In our beliefs I believe we should be conservative, preserving the truth of God’s Word. In our practices, I believe we should be progressive, reaching out into the world and moving with it, adjusting accordingly as we seek to meet its needs, to display this God we love, to win them to the Kingdom. Christ came to love sinners. Why can’t we do the same?

The ‘Sanctity’ of Worship

4 Replies

How often do you really think about what it is that God sees when you worship? I think especially of worship songs, where (it seems to me) it is so easy to simply get caught up in the moment, in the emotion of the music. I reflect back those chapel services and wonder if
sometimes there weren’t some of us who were trying to outdo everyone else with the purity and passion of our worship. There were worship times when it all felt so rehearsed, so… scripted. It kept me constantly aware of my own intentions, of my own heart, constantly analyzing and checking to make sure that my heart was true, that what I was singing and feeling was genuine adoration for this God of mine. I fear that, at times, I failed, and yet I can’t help but think that God accepted what I gave Him nonetheless.

I continue to be wary of my own intent in worship, to the point now where I often will not even sing if I feel I can’t be honest, if I can’t sing (or say) the words and really mean them. I still
wonder if the worship in our churches isn’t a little bit false, but there is really nothing I can do if it is — nothing except keep my heart and my motives pure and in so doing cause others to take notice of Christ in me. I think that is the beginning of fellowship – showing Christ in such a way as to cause others to be even more sensitive to Him.

Knowing When To Just Keep Your Mouth Shut

3 Replies

It’s interesting. There have been several moments over the last few weeks where I have either read something on Xanga or overheard something that was said in casual conversation that have just caused me to think, “Hey, now. That’s not right.” And every nerve in my body was tingling because I just wanted to counter the statement, to “set ‘im right”, to correct what was such obvious foolishness and stupidity.

But what I’m learning is that so often it is just better to hold one’s tongue and say nothing. I have had to learn to stop and think, and ultimately I end up determining that, even had I said something, it would not have changed the opinion of the individual in question and would possibly have done more to hurt than to help. As much as I want to bring people to a correct view as I understand it (with humility, of course), I have to remind myself that many don’t want to be corrected or even necessarily led to the truth, as it would require a change to their personal worldview. About the best I can hope to do is continue my own search for the truth, refine my own worldview by what I know, and choose my opportunities to share with those who are eager to hear and learn and be shaped, as I hope they do for me. Sometimes, I just have to keep my mouth shut and let them find their own way.

Too Much ‘Reminiscence’?

5 Replies

A recent set of questions
has caused me to reflect again on an issue I faced and dealt with in my social group in college. From a psychological, spiritual, and counseling point of view, it’s something that does arise periodically and should be handled with care and wisdom. The issue is this — finding a balance between spending too much time thinking about mistakes made in the past, and moving on with life. I’ve met a few people who just find it so very difficult to get over feelings of guilt and shame regarding things they have done or said somewhere in their past. For them, it’s a great stumbling block, a hurdle that they just can’t seem to get over. A lot of depression cases are
based on this sort of thing. They just wish they could go back and fix it, that doing so would make their present lives so much better. (The trouble is that it probably wouldn’t actually fix
things as much as they expect.)

There is a distinct difference between being stuck in the past and beating oneself up over past mistakes and learning from those same mistakes. Granted, it is sometimes VERY easy to get hung up on those things, but doing so really serves no practical purpose and leads nowhere good. Instead, and this takes a great amount of work and not a little bit of pain, effort must be made to pick up the pieces, face the consequences squarely, and use the situation, however
unpleasant, to learn wisdom, endurance, and patience. The interesting part of this is that, if you allow it, these situations can be some of the best learning periods and spiritual development times you will ever face. The moments when I felt closest to God, when I matured most as a Christian, were probably in some of the darkest times of my life. It was hard to get through, and I did feel guilt and shame and even a little bit of depression, and I didn’t always like the consequences, but that was okay because when I relied on God I found it all that much easier to deal with and I learned greater wisdom than if I had fixated on the unpleasantness of my circumstances and shunned God.

Extraterrestrial Intelligence

5 Replies

Maybe I’m just slow on the uptake, but it suddenly ocurred to me this morning why so many secularists embrace the idea of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence and why so many Christians reject the notion. Speaking in strictly general terms, for the secularist, it is statistically impossible for mankind to be alone in the universe. I realized today that this idea is based upon the theory of evolution, and taking that as a premise, it is absolutely true that, statistically speaking, life would only have evolved in one location in the universe. Because this notion is founded so fundamentally upon evolutionary theory, Christians reject it out of hand, as we believe in all life being created, in an intelligent design to all things. (Now, of course, I have also heard the idea from both Christians and ‘religious secularists’ that God would not have wasted anything, and so therefore He must have created intelligent life elsewhere besides on Terra Firma.)

It is entirely possible that non-intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, and it is also possible that God created other intelligent life and simply found it unnecessary to reveal it to
Man. I do believe that Man is unique as the image-bearer of God (“Let us make Man in our image…”), so if other intelligent life exists elsewhere, I would tend to think that they would share a position similar to that of the angels — once fallen, forever fallen.

Personally, I tend to believe that Man is alone in the universe (so far as created intelligence goes) because I believe God intended Man to be unique, the only of His creations to bear His image. The Genesis account does not mention life being created anywhere but on Earth. Additionally, Christ came to Earth to pay the price for sin, and not elsewhere, which further leads me to believe that Man is unique. I believe that the rest of the universe was created for His, and our, pleasure and enjoyment, to demonstrate His power, and to draw His image-bearers to Himself.

I won’t die defending this position, nor will I get angry if I am proven wrong. It is simply my opinion based on what little knowledge I possess.

The Psychological Difficulty of Media Exposure

1 Reply

I was listening to some friends discuss TV shows over the weekend and heard them talking about the effects that certain shows have on them. It was interesting to hear the differences between male and female reactions to a particular show. Differences in background seemed to play a role in how the show affected each individual, as well. I listened as one guy exclaimed that he could not understand why the women were so creeped out when he himself reacted so
casually. I got the distinct impression that he felt that the show should not have had any real impact on them because he believed that it had not had an impact on himself.

Similarly, I thought about all the books I have read over the years, all the different kinds of music to which I’ve listened, and all the movies and television programs I’ve watched. I was reminded that I would be foolish to think that any of those things had never affected me in any way. Everything that an individual is exposed to has an effect on the psyche, on the spirit. It changes the individual, however slight. Everything in the media affects every person that it touches, changes them, makes them a different person. The sad thing is that for so many people this change is unconscious, beneath awareness. People end up changing into something other than what they expected and before they realize it has happened. I can clearly recall my mood and demeanor after reading certain books, watching certain shows, listening to certain songs. Sometimes, I am content with the changes. Sometimes, I find the changes disquieting. Sometimes, I mentally work to counteract the changes before they can become permanent. Sometimes, I find myself brushing them off casually, shrugging my shoulders in disregard. I fear, though, that few people ever make the effort to even think about how the media to which they expose themselves affects them. And I think that it explains, in part, the nature of our society today, the nature of the generation of youth that only seek self-fulfillment at the cost of nearly everything else. And again, I find myself coming back to this issue of critical thinking, constantly evaluating everything, putting it into its proper place, avoiding those things which are harmful and consciously, willfully attending to those things which we allow ourselves, whether it be willfully or passively and indirectly, to be exposed.

Do not think that it does not touch you, that it bounces harmlessly away. I do not think that exposure to the media is wholly bad, but I do not think that it can only be casually embraced.
Vigilance is key, self-awareness necessary. Given time, and without these, you may not recognize the face in the mirror.