Category Archives: theology

Theology Matters

Posted on by
4

Theology matters. It might sound boring or distant or academic or fill in the blank, but I think the reality is that how we understand God (god, gods, goddess, or the lack thereof) and their relationship with the world defines much of how we ourselves understand reality.

Randomly and without regard for attempting to create a complete or whole list of any kind, here are some random pieces of theology that I’ve been mulling over lately that are important to me.

  • Death isn’t a doorway into a new reality, it is an obstacle that has been overcome. Death is something that attempts to have a stranglehold on our reality that, through Jesus, has been defeated. It’s not an entrance into a new world it’s a pain that’s been incapacitated and left as vulnerable and hallow. We often seem to think in terms of death as a right of passage when in reality it’s an extension of hell that Jesus decided to do away with. I say ‘extension of hell’ because it’s the outcome of our brokenness, of the fact that our bodies are falling apart, it’s a reality that we weren’t necessarily intended for…let me explain more in bullet point numero two.
  • Everyone in their right mind believes in hell. Ok, maybe everyone doesn’t believe in a subterranean place that stinks of rotten eggs and is filled with fire (did I just describe the Fire Swamp from Princess Bride?) But to live in the world and not see or experience hell is to be ignorant or incredibly distracted. Pain, suffering, injustice, addiction, cancer…hell. Hell on earth is a reality, it’s right in front of us, and to deny it is to deny the opportunity for its opposite to be true–namely hope, peace, restoration, transformation, beauty, compassion, forgiveness, healing, love…all those things that wage against hell in all its forms.
  • God doesn’t make shit. I know, I know, I could have said that a different way–but I think claiming the truth that God absolutely does not make crap is the best and most poignant way to be reminded of a number of essential truths that we often mask over. First off, you don’t suck. We might be broken (see bullet point numero two) but we are created in the image of God. God did not make a mistake in making you. Christina Aguilera might have got something kind of a little bit right: you are beautiful. Secondly believing that God doesn’t make shit reminds us that his creation (dirt, sand, sea stars, naked mole rats, etc.) is not something that’s just going to waste away and be destroyed. This world isn’t worthless, it’s not going to be burnt by fire one day as we move onto to some disembodied heavenly place. God isn’t a destroyer, he’s a restorer. Why would he destroy something that he has deemed good? No, God restores things! He restores them to their original purpose and intended beauty! Both our broken bodies and the breaking world he’s given us will one day be restored as he intended them to be because you don’t burn a Picasso if it gets spaghetti sauce on it, you restore it.
  • It’s all about a story. Theology and doctrine is less about bullet points (ironic bullet point eh?) and more about a story. The Bible is not a map, it’s not a rule book, it’s a story. It is an epic and grand narrative that we have been invited to participate in. When we try to reduce it to static bullet points what we’re trying to do is reduce it and remove it from it’s messy context. The reality is that there’s nothing we know about God that isn’t somehow a metaphor and there’s nothing we know from Scripture that isn’t from within the context of messy humanity. This doesn’t mean that snapshots aren’t ever appropriate (pictures still speak a thousand words right?) it just means that we must understand their place and identity. To stare at a picture is to recognize that it was taken amidst a scene, that it’s capture a slice of an event, of something that happened. Bullet point doctrinal statements or theological positions are still-frames within a movie…an epic movie…a movie where we’re invited to act in the fourth installment of the series.
  • Good news is good. If following Jesus isn’t good news for you and for those who are around you then somethings broken. Joining in the Kingdom of Love is a good thing that should be good to you and those around you. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it’s not hard, I’m not saying that it doesn’t come with a cost, I’m not saying that life might even get tangibly worse in some ways once a person decides to join in the Jesus way…but pain and good are not enemies. Hard and good are not opposed to each other. Many of the best things (friendship, marriage, good food) come at a high cost. But following Jesus, choosing to live into the narrative of Scripture (see previous bullet point), and living a life that dares to lean into the ways of the Kingdom of God should not only be incredibly good news to you but it should be good news to those around you…it’s just the nature of the beast…isn’t it?

I could go on for a while though I think with every bullet point I might be digging myself a bigger hole as I give individuals more things to react against or disagree with! Theology is important, it oddly shapes us as we shape it (and vice versa), it helps us to live into and live out of a reality that can be wholly transformational…or, as I think we see very clearly in different places, theology can be wholly deceptive, destructive, and hurtful. This is why it is important to be a part of a safe community of people where you can hash this stuff out. Find a church, find a friend, find a book club, find a place where you can talk through and figure out what story you’re living out of, what story is defining you, and what story you’d prefer to define your future.

peace.

Heresy

Posted on by
3

“Jesus reveals God to us; God does not reveal Jesus to us…We cannot deduce anything about Jesus from what we think we know about God; we must deduce everything about God from what we do know about Jesus…”

As a Christian Jesus is my ideal starting point. If I want to better understand the mystery of God I should seek to better understand Jesus. If I want to better understand the whole of Scripture I should seek to better understand Jesus. What does God feel and think about suffering? Look at Jesus. What does God feel or think about rejects and freaks? Look at Jesus. What does God think about money, materialism, and consumption? Look at Jesus.

Let me quickly add one caveat before I move on. Things are not simple! Just looking at Jesus is not simple. The reality is that I don’t have a clear picture of Jesus. I only see him through my own world view, through my own baggage. So while it is an incredible and difficult task in a sense to look at Jesus, I do believe that it is a forgiving task full of mercy and grace along the way. One of the beauties of following Him is that he knows my baggage, he knows my (in)ability to comprehend and understand who he is and what he is about. And most importantly he is able to meet me where I am at and create transformation and a new creation despite my ignorance or brokenness!

My purpose in this blog is to talk about church. If we are honest about ourselves we must accept the reality that most of what we practice and believe about church is solely taught or read about in the book of Acts and the letters in the latter half of the Bible. Very little of how we define and practice being the church is founded in our reading and understanding of Jesus. While I do not believe that Paul (who wrote many of those aforementioned letters) and Jesus would disagree with each other or throw down in fisticuffs if given the opportunity, I do think that we have improperly done our theology about church (in biblical theology circles this is called ecclesiology). Similar to how we try to fit Jesus into our understanding of God instead of the other way around, with church we have spent more time trying to fit Jesus into our understanding of Paul. Would things be different if we started with Jesus? Would things be different if we attempted to define what a movement of Jesus followers (church) would look like based on the life and ministry of Jesus himself and then look into Paul and the other New Testament writings to see what they came up with in doing the same process?

Take a step back and think about the early church. What did they have? They had the stories about Jesus. They had the Old Testament. They had their own context. And they had the working of the Holy Spirit. WE, on the other hand, get all that PLUS the stories of what those early faith communities did, what they struggled with, the questions they asked, and the dysfunctions they developed. If I created a formula to better describe how the early followers of Jesus came up with what church looked like, it might look like this:

  • Jesus + History (including the Old Testament) + Context + Spirit = first century church

Couldn’t you look at our churches, our ways of defining how to do church and suggest that our formula looks more like this:

  • Paul + your grandpa’s context + Spirit = western church

What if we tried to craft a different formula? Would church today look different if we made an authentic effort to live and practice out of this formula:

  • Jesus + Church History (including rest of Scripture) + OUR context + Spirit = ?

I’m no scholar, but I know that much of the early churches structures, practices, and disciplines were not new. They were things that they borrowed from out of their own context, history, and surrounding culture. They borrowed things that were of value in following Jesus. We, in turn, have made those things concrete. Have we made the wrong things concrete? Have we inadvertently practiced idolatry by elevating that which is not holy (the practices and structures) to a place of holiness? In Paul’s writings we see a community of people struggling with the equation, with the formula. In those writings we see the churches journey, their story, their “becoming”.

Have we I ignorantly tried to adopt their culture, their context, their problems, and their journey without following their lead? Would it not be more true to their journey, to Scripture, if I was to follow the early churches lead by looking at my Lord, looking at my context, looking at my story (history), and listening/looking for God’s untamed Spirit? I wonder what type of church I would end up with?

Sorry for the heresy. I’m an out loud processor, I grow most through dialog, through putting things out there that I may not even agree with…though, to be perfectly honest, I’m kind of liking what I’ve come up with.

Why Photography is an Illusion*

Posted on by
3

I’ve had three separate conversations with three separate people over a period of about three days (sounds like that bad Jim Carry “scary” movie) all centered around one idea.

A photograph is an illusion. An illusion, not an allusion…though I’m sure you could allude to things in photographs…The whole concept of snapshots, in whatever field of study, gives the illusion that you are capturing life. But you are not. What I love about quality photographers is that they’re able to capture images that I did not even see. We may be looking at the same object but they see and capture that object from a perspective that was invisible to me. The photographer captured an aspect of their own perspective, but they did not capture reality. Reality is three dimensional, it is fluid, and dynamic.

But don’t get caught up too much in the photography application, because I think it’s a much bigger thing that just photos. My wife was learning the other day about how we test our bodies. X-rays, blood tests, etc. are all ways of taking snapshots of our body in order to asses health. But the problem with these snapshots is that in reality our bodies never sit still as they do for those snapshots. In reality our aches and pains are rarely experienced statically and neither does our body function internally in a static manner. At any given moment our body has numerous functions, cycles, and changes. If we then take a quick snapshot of what is happening in our body at a given moment all we learn is what is happening in our body at that given moment or in that particular stance or with that particular food in our body or…etc. Our body is so incredibly dynamic and fluid that snapshots do not do it justice! They do not capture health (or lack thereof) effectively. And, yet, virtually all of our methods for testing our bodies are based upon a static image.

The third aspect that this idea of a deficit snapshot came up is in defining culture. When someone asks me to tell them about Portland or Vancouver they’re usually asking me to explain the “culture of the Northwest”. What I proceed to do is define a snapshot of the NW. Funky, weird, liberal, creative, coffee, beer, McMenamins…This is what cultural anthropology originally set out to do, define and articulate culture. Missionaries will spend time studying the culture that they are preparing to go serve. We speak of churches having a specific culture. But what in the world does that even mean?! If a specific church has a culture are we referring to the youth group? Are we referring to how the elders operate? Are we referring to their history? What about the young families that are trying to bring change? What “culture” are we referring to? Culture is so incredibly fluid and changing, like a stream, that rather than being capable of capturing it with a snapshot maybe our goal should be to run along side it as much as we’re capable. A snapshot gives the illusion of understanding, but in reality all you’ve captured is your own lens. When you describe or capture a culture all you’ve done is created an image that says “here’s how I view this world in front of me from my own unique perspective” even if a missionary goes to a rural African village, lives in a hut for thirty years, an in every way lives with (and like) the people, he will still always be a white dude that made a choice to live in that manner and could at any moment choose to leave. He will always be understanding that culture from his perspective.

Snapshots serve a purpose, but I fear that in many ways we have allowed them to too greatly define reality as we understand and articulate it. I wonder about the snapshots we’ve used to define faith, the Biblical story, and what it means to follow Jesus.

I think our greatest hope is in the pursuit of bigger ears (listening), bigger hearts (empathy), and an understanding of our limits.

* Please don’t get me wrong, I love photography!