[Assignment] "We face this as caregivers. In our pastoral role we seek to support others for whom God seems silent, or distant, or even fully absent. But I'm asking us to be more vulnerable with each other in this discussion. Have you experienced the silence/distance/absence of God in your spiritual journey? How have you managed that? What has helped you?"
We know that God never leaves us nor forsakes (abandons) us. So what is he doing? Why is he silent?
What has helped us:
1. Press into God. When God seems silent and distant - pursue Him relentlessly. Pray, fast, read scripture, and do whatever it takes to change your daily lifestyle and routine to build more God-time into your day. Build quiet time into your day as well. I spent about a week in complete silence while driving in my car (which I drive often). I used this time to think, pray, listen, and dedicate to God. I combined a fast Easter weekend with my desire to hear from God. I woke up earlier (most days) to spend more time with God and took more opportunities throughout the day to pray. I was open with some trustworthy people to pray for us as well. Sometimes when we press into God and pursue Him, it still feels like He is moving away from us. This means we must be persistent in our intent and activity. However, we cannot think we will manipulate God by our faith-works, so our earnestness must be sincere. We must bear in mind the humble words of Jesus in Gethsemane, “not as I will, but as You will” (Mt. 26). We must be faithful in taking opportunities and making the most of our time with God, but we must also yield and consecrate our future to Him. We must trust that God’s ways are higher than ours and His thoughts are not ours (Is. 55). This gives us hope that God’s perspective is the ‘big picture’ and we only have a glimpse.
2. “Do what’s next.” This was the best, most simple piece of advice we recently received. When those times come that God seems distant, it is often that our world seems more chaotic and problematic. In those times we must seek the counsel of God (as said above) and trust that God will enable us to make the right decisions. Then, when we are faced with making decisions and moving forward, we look at what we can do (what we have the capability of doing) and go about doing it. We must be as discerning as possible and there is no excuse for carelessness. However, I have recently discovered that these are times when God wants faithful and obedient action from us.
3. Resist the Devil. I don’t know that I would say it that way when counseling someone, but we must resist those human urges to be angry, scared, frustrated, anxious, etc. Actually, we must keep those emotions within their proper perspective by taking our emotions and talking them over with God and a trusted partner (spouse, mentor, family member, friend, etc.). The negative aspect of emotion is easy to slip into and stay stuck in so we must develop healthy and appropriate ways of managing those emotions. In this way, we are resisting the Devil that would want us to stay faithless, hopeless, and frustrated (remember - steal, kill, destroy - Jn. 10).
4. There is power in praise. This could be combined with #3, but it deserves its own number. A book I read years ago transformed my thinking (“Prison to Praise” and/or “Power in Praise” by Merlin Carothers). When things get tough, the more things we can find to thank God for (give Him praise) – the better we are. Praise helps us be optimistic. It takes the focus off of our problems and puts the glory on God. It’s been said that ‘you get what you focus on’ and we don’t want our problems to get the glory.
This, of course, is not "Mike's Four Easy Steps to Hearing God" but a combination of all these (some more, some less) has been some of what my wife and I have learned over the years. By the grace of God we are not consumed!
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Word Study from Joshua - Charam/Cherem/Herem
"Charam"
There are 52 occurrences of the word charam. It is most commonly translated “accursed.” However, according to Strong’s Concordance, other uses of the word suggest it to mean to consecrate, utterly destroy, devote, forfeit, and utterly slay. In Hebrew the word suggests "separating" or "devoting to God." We may understand it to be a term for setting apart or secluding, “specifically (by a ban) to devote to religious uses (especially destruction)” (Strong’s Concordance #2763). The word “charam” would be similar to the concept of consecration in this way. Just as qadhosh, means "holy" or "consecrated to the service" of God, it is not liable to be used for ordinary or secular purposes. So, the root of cherem means "devoting" to God anything which would, if it were spared, would corrupt or contaminate the religious life of Israel. As a result, the idea of destroying or exterminating is the surest way of avoiding such contamination. As the secondary definition implies, the word may also mean “to slit” (one’s nose, lip, ear, etc.) in such a way as to disfigure or mutilate (especially their face). Again, the term implies a separation. Matthew Henry’s commentary notes that:
“The great severity Joshua used towards those he conquered. He gave no quarter to man, woman, nor child, put to the sword all the souls (v. 28, 30, 32, 35, etc.), utterly destroyed all that breathed (v. 40), and left none remaining. Nothing could justify this military execution but that herein they did as the Lord God of Israel commanded (v. 40), which was sufficient not only to bear them out, and save them for the imputation of cruelty, but to sanctify what they did, and make it an acceptable piece of service to his justice.” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Joshua Ch. 10)
Englishman’s Concordance notes that the most often use of the term is the dedication to destruction of the cities of the Canaanites and other neighboring cities. In this way, Israel was “exterminating” the inhabitants, and destroying (or appropriating as spoils) their possessions. From the NASB translation, we can see that the most common interpretation tends to imply complete (“utter”) destruction. The reason for this thinking is that everything that might affect the unique character of Israel was banned. Those things from pagan cultures might cause syncretization among the community. Therefore, all idols, idolatrous cities, and idolatrous persons must not be allowed to influence the community.
The NASB notes the various usages of the word throughout the Old Testament:
annihilate (1), covet (1), destroy them utterly (1), destroy utterly (1), destroyed them utterly (1), destroying (1), destroying them completely (2), destruction (2), devote (2), forfeited (1), set apart (1), sets apart (1), utterly destroy (11), utterly destroyed (22), utterly destroying (3).
In terms of quantity and clusters of usage, there are six instances for the word he·ḥĕ·rîm:
Joshua 8:26 “…until he had utterly destroyed all….”
Joshua 10:28 “…of the sword; he utterly destroyed it and every….”
Joshua 10:35 “…of the sword; and he utterly destroyed that day….”
Joshua 10:40 “…survivor, but he utterly destroyed all….”
Joshua 11:12 “…of the sword, [and] utterly destroyed them….”
1 Samuel 15:8 “…alive, and utterly destroyed all….”
There are five instances for the word ha·ḥă·rêm:
Deuteronomy 3:6 “We utterly destroyed them, as we did….”
Deuteronomy 7:2 “…you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy….”
Deuteronomy 13:15 “…of the sword, utterly destroying it and all….”
Deuteronomy 20:17 “But you shall utterly destroy….”
Joshua 11:11 “…of the sword, utterly destroying [them]; there was no….”
However, is it possible that the common interpretation has been wrong? It is interesting, then, that Dr. Coleson makes such a convincing argument against a common mis-interpretation of the word charam as it relates to Joshua’s conquest of the Promised Land. As he states, “Joshua does not claim Israel conquered all the land of Canaan easily and at once, does not claim Israel annihilated all the Canaanites--or even most of them--and does not claim Israel settled the land in its entirety early on” (Coleson, Joshua Introduction). Within the narrative of the conquests of the Israelites, there is interpretive room for the submission of, capture, and/or deportation of those people who were conquered. There is no real evidence that God commanded or that Joshua committed the extermination of complete cities or people. As Coleson points out, “Indeed, upon careful reading with the benefit of knowledge of this very real ancient Near Eastern genre of military reporting, we will see that Joshua reports neither God’s ‘literal’ commanding of, nor Joshua’s ‘literal’ carrying out of, genocide upon the people of Canaan. That charge finally may be laid to rest; not even all the people of Jericho perished at its fall (see Younger 1990; Hoffmeier 1996:41-42)” (Coleson, Joshua Introduction).
What has been widely interpreted as “genocide,” “extermination,” “annihilation,” etc. is very likely mis-interpreted. As Coleson says, “God did not command, nor did Moses and Joshua commit, genocide upon the Canaanites or upon any group of them” (Coleson, Joshua 10, pg. 2). The command to “utterly destroy” is an example of hyperbole. For instance, when kings went to war, they were to achieve total victory. This victory, though reported as annihilation, was actually the complete surrender of the will of the enemy. Annihilation was a hyperbolic term for victory over the enemy. In this way, those who were conquered were annihilated in their ability to further resist the invaders. Thus, for the Israelites, they did not commit genocide; rather, their victories in the Promised Land prevented their enemies from further resistance. None of the Canaanite peoples were able to prevent Israel from inhabiting their country. It is not likely (or probable) that the Israelites literally killed every enemy soldier along with all the civilians in the cities.
Where does that leave the reader? It may be helpful to bridge both understandings. With the perspective that God did not command genocide and how unlikely it is to kill every living person in the army and city, one can adopt the view of charam as hyperbole in (at least most of) these verses. We may also combine, however, the interpretive views of charam by many as “ban,” “devoted,” and “separated.” As Israel conquered pagan cultures, there would have been an end (a “ban”) on continued use of idol worship. As a testament to the power of God and his faithfulness to his people, these conquered people in the region would have been “devoted” to God as glorifying to him by their subjection. Finally, as a precaution against inter-mingling and corruption, I would speculate that there would be separation between Israel and their captives.
[Appended: Response Posts]
"'The basic meaning [of herem] is the exclusion of an object from the use or abuse of man and its irrevocable surrender to God' (Harris 1999, 324-325)."
This is a great definition. There is the element of surrender, which I believe is important in the study of this word as it relates to the total surrender of the people's wills to Israel. It also includes the element of destruction, which communicates the reality of being conquered. I also appreciated the "exclusion...from the use or abuse or man." I feel this speaks to the "ban" definition of the word. Idolatry is certainly a mis-use (intentionally misspelled) and an abuse of faith not directed toward God. These idols, and the subsequent worship thereof, must be surrendered to God.
I think it is appropriate to translate this word to not necessarily imply genocide or extermination. It would seem that in order to institute new worship and religious practices (in place of deeply entrenched, idolatrous ones), there must be a breaking (surrender) of the wills. In this way, I think we can view the conquest of the Canaanite region as God's gracious activity to bring pagan cultures under the tutelage of God's chosen vehicle of redemption - Israel.
One of the things that I noticed from our studies from the last two weeks is that the Gibeonites were the only ones who acted out of some kind of faith toward God. Albeit their tactics were not pure, but I don't think we can fault non-believers too much for that reason. They are operating from whatever amount of faith they have. I would take this as being a condition upon which they would be "worthy to remain." We can contrast this to the remainder of those conquered cities who did not act if faith, but rather fear. They were utterly conquered and their will to fight or resist was destroyed.
One of the things we can note from the Gibeonites was their willingness to give up their lifestyles in order to preserve their lives. They knew Israel's God and the promise given to Moses. As such, they were motivated by faith (even if by holy fear) to protect their lives. The other cities sought to protect and preserve their idolatrous cultures and were thoroughly defeated.
God is a jealous God and will not allow or tolerate the presence or worship of other gods and idols among His people. He will not allow His holiness (nor the objects of his holiness) to be contaminated by the sins of idolatry. In this way, he will also not allow his people (as objects - or even representatives - of his holiness) to be contaminated by idol worship.
The people of the Cannanite region were known for their idolatry and worship of other gods. The complete conquering of these people (and the destruction of their idols) sends the message that Israel's God is the Almighty, Most Holy One. Charam, from what I studied, not only included the complete conquering of the armies and cities, but also the surrender of the wills of the people. This leads me to believe that the surrender of the will would precipitate an acceptance of Israel's God.
When viewed in this way, not in terms of massive genocide or extermination, the breaking of the will of the Canaanite region people would be a tool for God's grace and adoption. By instituting Israelite law, then, there would be a ban on any idol worship and a way to teach/show these conquered people worship of the One, True God.
These defeated cities were a testament to the power of God. In a way, they were 'devoted' to God in the sense that the victories Israel accomplished were designated to glorify God. Their destruction was not only the defeat of their armies, but also in their inability to continue resistance. Their wills were crushed and their idolatrous ways stripped. A new Law was in town.
Some questions worth pondering: Can, or should, our theology allow for God instituting the death and destruction of those vehemently opposed to Him (through paganism and/or idolatry)? How does the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah participate with our understanding? Knowing how Israel would struggle against sycretizing with idolatrous people, could these “exterminations” not be God’s gracious act toward His people to protect their culture, their character, and the integrity of their faith? How do we reconcile the love, patience, and mercy of God with His holiness, character, and justice? Do passages such as Ezekiel 33:11 and 2 Peter 2:4-10 belong in our discussion?
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Kherem (Kharam) - Joshua 7 (Joshua Class)
JOSHUA 7:12b “. . . they turn their backs and run because they have been made liable to destruction. I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy whatever among you is devoted to destruction.”
JOS 7:13 "Go, consecrate the people. Tell them, `Consecrate yourselves in preparation for tomorrow; for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: That which is devoted is among you, O Israel. You cannot stand against your enemies until you remove it.”
I figured Achan would receive a lot of attention and I really wanted to pursue something else, but I kept coming back to these verses and the kherem. We will remember in 6:17, 18, and 21 that Jericho and all its items therein were to be ‘devoted’ to the Lord, lest they would bring destruction upon themselves (“the camp” in 6:18). Joshua made it explicitly clear that those ‘devoted things’ (kharam and kherem) would bring destruction. Those things were to be considered as impure, and as such, needed to be purified by fire and burned (6:24). The city was to be an offering to the Lord (cf. 6:17, “For the Lord has given you the city!”), and to take anything away would be robbing God. This dedication was to further show the Israelites that God was in control and that this victory belongs to God’s work, not human work. A curse is then placed on the city after it is burned (6:26). The actions of Achan, then, are a clear indictment against him. He has disobeyed (rebelled), he has become ‘impure,’ he has robbed God, not to mention his greed and placing himself above his community. In effect, he has become accursed.
This setting brings us to 7:12 where the Israelites have become “liable to destruction.” The kherem has become kherem for the Israelites. They have become contaminated by the impurity. The destruction of the ‘devoted things’ has become the destruction of the people. This is the reason for God’s words to Joshua that he “will not be with you anymore unless you destroy whatever among you is devoted to destruction” or “. . . destroy the accursed from among you.” This ‘accursed’ would have to include not only those items themselves, but also the perpetrator who has become accursed with them. This word from the Lord is a direct contradiction to the frequent use of the promise “as I was with Moses, so I will be with you.” For this kherem to continue in the camp of the Israelites, Joshua will not enjoy the same fellowship with the Lord.
What is the antidote to impurity, contamination, rebellion, and sin? Holiness – consecration to the Lord is the solution. I think it may be important to think about possible reasons that God would command the Israelites to “sanctify yourselves.” I’m speculating, but in 3:5 the Lord gives the same command to “Consecrate yourselves….”and then in 5:2 they are to be circumcised, which are both ritual purity rites. Given the communal nature of the sin contamination (it was applied to “the camp” in 6:18), it seems to me that God demands the corporate purity and holiness of his people to accomplish his plans. These times of purification put God in his proper place as Almighty and his people in their place of humility (as in being humble). It affirms to us that the Lord is at work, not us. “[We] cannot stand against [our] enemies until [we] remove [sin].”
I have been pondering some thoughts lately as I look at the influence of Christianity in North America (or lack thereof). I don’t want to get off topic, but I wonder about those things within our own camps that may prevent God from fully working in our midst. In what ways do we (or should we) be calling our people to “Consecrate themselves?” (Rhetorical question, and I am in full alliance with Dr. Coleson’s note that while God does the sanctifying, sometimes people are called do sanctify themselves, Joshua 7, pg. 5). There is assuredly sin in our congregations (as I am sure there were other sins in the Israelite camp). However, there is an exceptional (extraordinary) nature to the ‘devoted things’ that must be purified and purged from our midst lest we be “liable to destruction.” The kherem we tolerate or perpetuate in our congregations will become, for us, kherem – our own self-destruction.
[APPENDED]
In response to a thread discussing the sin of Achan as it relates to how the sins of fathers are passed on to the family (either by sin nature or by nurture).
I did some study on this with my post this week as well. In 6:18, there is a clear command from Joshua to “keep away from the devoted things, so that you will not bring about your own destruction by taking any of them. Otherwise you will make the camp of Israel liable to destruction and bring trouble on it.” So, Achan went into his rebellion/disobedience with full knowledge of the community-destructive nature of such an action. This community, unfortunately, includes his own family. Then, in 6:26 there is a curse pronounced over the city (and, as I believe, whatever had not been consecrated to the Lord). So those items that Achan took, became a cursed possession (either literally or, at least, figuratively). At any rate, “all the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the LORD” and to take any of these items is to rob God (cf. Malachi 3:8-10) and to violate the covenant. So those things that were to be devoted to destruction became destruction for Israel.
I wonder if, when the Lord commands, “Go, consecrate the people. Tell them, `Consecrate yourselves…,” the household of Achan did not (or could not) consecrate themselves for whatever speculative reasons. Just a thought. Or, I wonder if by hiding them under the tent, Achan, by his actions, implicates his family unknowingly. Thus, the sins of the father effect (and affect) the children.
There is another interesting thing I thought of. It may have no correlation or significance, but I thought about the way sin is confronted here versus how it is confronted in Jesus’ words in Matthew 18:15-17. In the Joshua passage, the tribe is brought forward first, then the clan, and then the family, and finally the individual. In Matthew 18, we are to seek out the individual first, then take the individual before two or three others, and then before the community. To put it this way, in Joshua there is an A-B-C equation. In Matthew, there is almost a C-B-A process (though not a perfect or direct correlation).
I’m not sure what to do with this, if anything. I guess it’s just more of an observation. One thing we can be sure of is that individual sin effects (and affects) the community. So, to preserve and protect the community, we must make sin-dealing a process that is God-inspired and God-directed.
MATT 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that `every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
JOS 7:13 "Go, consecrate the people. Tell them, `Consecrate yourselves in preparation for tomorrow; for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: That which is devoted is among you, O Israel. You cannot stand against your enemies until you remove it.”
I figured Achan would receive a lot of attention and I really wanted to pursue something else, but I kept coming back to these verses and the kherem. We will remember in 6:17, 18, and 21 that Jericho and all its items therein were to be ‘devoted’ to the Lord, lest they would bring destruction upon themselves (“the camp” in 6:18). Joshua made it explicitly clear that those ‘devoted things’ (kharam and kherem) would bring destruction. Those things were to be considered as impure, and as such, needed to be purified by fire and burned (6:24). The city was to be an offering to the Lord (cf. 6:17, “For the Lord has given you the city!”), and to take anything away would be robbing God. This dedication was to further show the Israelites that God was in control and that this victory belongs to God’s work, not human work. A curse is then placed on the city after it is burned (6:26). The actions of Achan, then, are a clear indictment against him. He has disobeyed (rebelled), he has become ‘impure,’ he has robbed God, not to mention his greed and placing himself above his community. In effect, he has become accursed.
This setting brings us to 7:12 where the Israelites have become “liable to destruction.” The kherem has become kherem for the Israelites. They have become contaminated by the impurity. The destruction of the ‘devoted things’ has become the destruction of the people. This is the reason for God’s words to Joshua that he “will not be with you anymore unless you destroy whatever among you is devoted to destruction” or “. . . destroy the accursed from among you.” This ‘accursed’ would have to include not only those items themselves, but also the perpetrator who has become accursed with them. This word from the Lord is a direct contradiction to the frequent use of the promise “as I was with Moses, so I will be with you.” For this kherem to continue in the camp of the Israelites, Joshua will not enjoy the same fellowship with the Lord.
What is the antidote to impurity, contamination, rebellion, and sin? Holiness – consecration to the Lord is the solution. I think it may be important to think about possible reasons that God would command the Israelites to “sanctify yourselves.” I’m speculating, but in 3:5 the Lord gives the same command to “Consecrate yourselves….”and then in 5:2 they are to be circumcised, which are both ritual purity rites. Given the communal nature of the sin contamination (it was applied to “the camp” in 6:18), it seems to me that God demands the corporate purity and holiness of his people to accomplish his plans. These times of purification put God in his proper place as Almighty and his people in their place of humility (as in being humble). It affirms to us that the Lord is at work, not us. “[We] cannot stand against [our] enemies until [we] remove [sin].”
I have been pondering some thoughts lately as I look at the influence of Christianity in North America (or lack thereof). I don’t want to get off topic, but I wonder about those things within our own camps that may prevent God from fully working in our midst. In what ways do we (or should we) be calling our people to “Consecrate themselves?” (Rhetorical question, and I am in full alliance with Dr. Coleson’s note that while God does the sanctifying, sometimes people are called do sanctify themselves, Joshua 7, pg. 5). There is assuredly sin in our congregations (as I am sure there were other sins in the Israelite camp). However, there is an exceptional (extraordinary) nature to the ‘devoted things’ that must be purified and purged from our midst lest we be “liable to destruction.” The kherem we tolerate or perpetuate in our congregations will become, for us, kherem – our own self-destruction.
[APPENDED]
In response to a thread discussing the sin of Achan as it relates to how the sins of fathers are passed on to the family (either by sin nature or by nurture).
I did some study on this with my post this week as well. In 6:18, there is a clear command from Joshua to “keep away from the devoted things, so that you will not bring about your own destruction by taking any of them. Otherwise you will make the camp of Israel liable to destruction and bring trouble on it.” So, Achan went into his rebellion/disobedience with full knowledge of the community-destructive nature of such an action. This community, unfortunately, includes his own family. Then, in 6:26 there is a curse pronounced over the city (and, as I believe, whatever had not been consecrated to the Lord). So those items that Achan took, became a cursed possession (either literally or, at least, figuratively). At any rate, “all the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the LORD” and to take any of these items is to rob God (cf. Malachi 3:8-10) and to violate the covenant. So those things that were to be devoted to destruction became destruction for Israel.
I wonder if, when the Lord commands, “Go, consecrate the people. Tell them, `Consecrate yourselves…,” the household of Achan did not (or could not) consecrate themselves for whatever speculative reasons. Just a thought. Or, I wonder if by hiding them under the tent, Achan, by his actions, implicates his family unknowingly. Thus, the sins of the father effect (and affect) the children.
There is another interesting thing I thought of. It may have no correlation or significance, but I thought about the way sin is confronted here versus how it is confronted in Jesus’ words in Matthew 18:15-17. In the Joshua passage, the tribe is brought forward first, then the clan, and then the family, and finally the individual. In Matthew 18, we are to seek out the individual first, then take the individual before two or three others, and then before the community. To put it this way, in Joshua there is an A-B-C equation. In Matthew, there is almost a C-B-A process (though not a perfect or direct correlation).
I’m not sure what to do with this, if anything. I guess it’s just more of an observation. One thing we can be sure of is that individual sin effects (and affects) the community. So, to preserve and protect the community, we must make sin-dealing a process that is God-inspired and God-directed.
MATT 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that `every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
Friday, March 9, 2012
Developing an initial mission statement of local church discipleship (Congregational Discipleship class)
Mission Statement: “The Discipleship Ministry at WCCN exists to advance God’s Kingdom through devoted followers of Christ, committed to fulfilling the Great Commission, by nurturing growth in biblical knowledge, wisdom, and Christlike holiness.”
First, our discipleship ministry exists to advance God’s Kingdom. The first and primary reason for our existence is purposed to spread the good news about Christ.
Second, to accomplish the advancing of the Kingdom, "devoted" followers of Christ are necessary. Devotion and commitment are especially needed in our culture. We need people who are compelled by the love of Christ to go outside the church to be ministers (we need them to minister inside the church, yes, but our mission is to send them out). Additionally, “followers” is intended to convey the communal aspect of discipleship. We are not trying to nurture and deploy islands. We are nurturing and deploying a network of people out into the world.
* “Followers of Christ” is important for unifying reasons. We all come under the banner of Christ, guided by his mission, teachings and lifestyle. Our authority, power, and commission come from him.
*“Commitment” conveys that we are committed – resolved in our task.
*“Fulfilling the Great Commission” – Again, our authority and help comes from Christ. The Great Commission is an essential discipleship mandate that we want to take appropriate steps to live out.
*We want to accomplish these things by “nurturing” certain things in people. We want our church to be a place where people are involved in significant ministry. A key component to significant ministry is using people’s gifts and abilities to teach, influence, and minister to others. Thus, we are an equipping church who wants to come alongside people and help them to grow in certain ways in order to employ them in ministry to others.
*“Biblical” – The Bible is our source for authority, teaching, living, etc. It is also essential and foundational. This is a confessional word that we will teach knowledge, help people to grow in wisdom, and assist them in Christlike holiness based off of the Bible.
*“Knowledge” – we want people to have a depth of knowledge of all scripture.
*“Wisdom” – we want our people to move beyond knowledge and into living out/owning biblical principles.
*“Christlike holiness” – At the risk of being redundant (Christlike and holiness), we want our people to live like Christ and to adopt the mission of Christ as their own. In that, however, we still want our people to know that holiness is part of that pursuit. A distinct marker of being like Christ should be (must be) holiness. The life Christ lived was a holy life so we want our people to do the same. It’s important enough to go ahead and include it.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
War, Huah, Yeah - Good God, Y'all
What is an exegetical and theological way of looking at "just war" or "holy war" in Joshua 6?
I think we like to have God’s plans and purposes fit neatly into our minds. If we can somehow categorize His thoughts, then we can find an appropriate theological stance to take on issues. As I have thought about the Christian discussion on war and warfare (i.e., “just war,” “holy war,” etc.) I have come to the conclusion (rather, confession), as in Isaiah 55:8-9, that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts nor are our ways (especially ways of thinking) are not His ways. Later, in verse 11, God declares that His word will accomplish what He what He desires and for His purposes.
I also think that our modes of thinking like continuity. When we establish a belief, we like that belief to hold some consistency and permanence. In this way, when we decide (or declare) something to be right, true, or whatever, then we want that thing to always be right, true, etc. Our minds have difficulty thinking that (as I flirt with sounding post-modern) something may be true here, but may not be true (or right) over there. If it’s true, then it’s going to be true (period).
I wonder if our thinking this way impedes our understanding of God in some things.( I am NOT speaking anything about God not being true.) What I am saying is that God is sovereign – he makes the rules and he can do what he wants. Yes, I believe he cannot go against his own character and nature nor can he act contrary to his Word. God is ordered and in control, but he is not contained.
As I fit Joshua 6 into my thinking about “just war,” I see a much broader picture than whether or not God is pleased by killing people (cf. Eze. 18:32 – He is not). I think we must keep in our minds the character and nature of God – mainly that he is holy, just, merciful, gracious, and loving. IF what the commentaries offer us is true(ish), then I think we can see how God’s character and “just war” language are not mutually exclusive. Instead, I think we can see how they are compatible in Joshua 6. What I am proposing here is that for this time, in this instance, and for God's purposes, war/conflict/death/etc. may have been God's way of enacting his will for the Isrealits (and Rahab).
Some notes regarding the exegesis of Joshua 6:
6:3 – Israel was armed for protection and conquest (cf. 5:13-14 - Even the Angel of the Lord’s army had a sword)
6:3 – There would be no war cries for 6 days
6:4 – The Ark and the priests were to be hemmed in, behind and before, by the army, symbolizing God’s presence (and, I think, protection)
6:4 – The ram’s horn is used for worship and for battle
6:5 – When the walls crumbled, it allowed Israel easy entry into the city
6:25 – Rahab (and her family) was spared
Some notes regarding the theology of Joshua 6:
I think we see a mixture of messages here. There seems to be a relationship between God and war, at least as it concerns Israel and God’s will. Dr. Coleson makes very clear here that God was communicating the fact that He was in charge, and not the Israelites. He notes, “… the way Jericho was taken, and its devotion to destruction, together undercut the two primary human motivations for war: the lust for glory in battle, and the lust for wealth in the spoils of conquest” (Joshua 6, pg. 6). Therefore, it was necessary for the Israelites to know that God for God to work, our human motivations must be eliminated.
Dr. Coleson also goes into great detail to paint a providential and merciful picture of the sacking of Jericho. The Hebrew terms for those killed in verse 21 are “are very general, and could be understood to exclude babies and young children entirely” (Joshua 6, pg. 7). He continues on by saying that, “In all likelihood, only a handful of adult men and women, who had not taken refuge with Rahab, survived to face Israel’s warriors” (Joshua 6, pg. 7). In this way, the protection of Rahab and family, the walls crumbling from the earthquake, and the ambiguity of the terms for those actually slain do give us a picture for God’s mercy and grace. We must note, however, that the protection is only offered for those who believe in God. God is just and the fact that Rahab “lives among the Israelites to this day” (v. 25), shows us the “breadth and depth of God's grace and mercy” (Coleson, Joshua 6, pg. 7).
B&W add some interesting thoughts to this discussion as well. They note S. Gevirtz’s idea that it could be that by destroying Jericho, purifying it by fire and cursing its resettlement, they were actually consecrating it to the Lord (214). B&W point out this view is lacking in a motivational factor for this place at this time. However, it is worth noting since, up to this point, there have already been events in the story that depict consecration unto the Lord (cf. 3:5, 5:8, 5:10). It is possible that we may also view the destruction of Jericho as a monument, not unlike the stones of remembrance (cf. 4:2-9, 20-24). It might be said of Jericho that God “did this so that all the peoples of the earth might know that the hand of the LORD is powerful and so that [we] might always fear the LORD [our] God" (Joshua 4:24).
Parenthetically, it is also worth noting from B&W where they add that there could also have been a water-borne parasite infecting the spring at Jericho, which is their primary source of water. They also noted research that suggests a high infant mortality rate. Could it be the total destruction of the city and its curse could be a means of protection for others (including the Israelites) by keeping them away from this town and area? We do have an image of protection, of sorts, from the procession of the Ark around Jericho. The ‘honor guard’ of the priests and the Ark are surrounded and protected by the military forces. Clearly God does not need human protection, so what is the point? It may be just the opposite where God is the central figure to the conquests. In this way, it is the army who is being protected, not the other way around. So with this in mind, it’s not too far-fetched that, if the above research would be accurate, that the destruction and curse of Jericho may have been God’s providential grace at work.
I would like to propose that God and war are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I think they can be complimentary when viewed from God’s perspective. Remember, His ways are higher than our ways. Joshua 6 seems to say to us that God will accomplish His will and he will use the best means necessary to do it. It also communicates the extent to which he is faithful to those who are obedient and consecrated to Him (cf. 3:5, 5:8).
As to the total destruction of Jericho, one of the thoughts that came to mind was Mark 12:43-45:
When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, `I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.
Could it be that the destruction and curse of Jericho had spiritual implications? Jericho may have been a foreshadowing to God’s view of sin. I don’t know anything about the spiritual condition of Jericho, but what I do know is that Jericho was not inhabited by God’s people. So, where there God’s people are (in Joshua’s time), the presence of God was manifest with them through the covenant-Ark. So, it would be necessary for the destruction and curse of Jericho (and its unbelieving inhabitants) to prevent any Israelites from settling there and possibly syncretizing. God will not share his presence with sin. Therefore, either one must go…and if it (sin) must go, it will must be completely eradicated or else it will only get worse (Mk. 12:43-45). This is not the only way to look at it, but as I have been thinking about these events in Joshua 6, it may be one such way.
Just in case the song is stuck in your head too - http://youtu.be/wrZkHKANrNw
I think we like to have God’s plans and purposes fit neatly into our minds. If we can somehow categorize His thoughts, then we can find an appropriate theological stance to take on issues. As I have thought about the Christian discussion on war and warfare (i.e., “just war,” “holy war,” etc.) I have come to the conclusion (rather, confession), as in Isaiah 55:8-9, that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts nor are our ways (especially ways of thinking) are not His ways. Later, in verse 11, God declares that His word will accomplish what He what He desires and for His purposes.
I also think that our modes of thinking like continuity. When we establish a belief, we like that belief to hold some consistency and permanence. In this way, when we decide (or declare) something to be right, true, or whatever, then we want that thing to always be right, true, etc. Our minds have difficulty thinking that (as I flirt with sounding post-modern) something may be true here, but may not be true (or right) over there. If it’s true, then it’s going to be true (period).
I wonder if our thinking this way impedes our understanding of God in some things.( I am NOT speaking anything about God not being true.) What I am saying is that God is sovereign – he makes the rules and he can do what he wants. Yes, I believe he cannot go against his own character and nature nor can he act contrary to his Word. God is ordered and in control, but he is not contained.
As I fit Joshua 6 into my thinking about “just war,” I see a much broader picture than whether or not God is pleased by killing people (cf. Eze. 18:32 – He is not). I think we must keep in our minds the character and nature of God – mainly that he is holy, just, merciful, gracious, and loving. IF what the commentaries offer us is true(ish), then I think we can see how God’s character and “just war” language are not mutually exclusive. Instead, I think we can see how they are compatible in Joshua 6. What I am proposing here is that for this time, in this instance, and for God's purposes, war/conflict/death/etc. may have been God's way of enacting his will for the Isrealits (and Rahab).
Some notes regarding the exegesis of Joshua 6:
6:3 – Israel was armed for protection and conquest (cf. 5:13-14 - Even the Angel of the Lord’s army had a sword)
6:3 – There would be no war cries for 6 days
6:4 – The Ark and the priests were to be hemmed in, behind and before, by the army, symbolizing God’s presence (and, I think, protection)
6:4 – The ram’s horn is used for worship and for battle
6:5 – When the walls crumbled, it allowed Israel easy entry into the city
6:25 – Rahab (and her family) was spared
Some notes regarding the theology of Joshua 6:
I think we see a mixture of messages here. There seems to be a relationship between God and war, at least as it concerns Israel and God’s will. Dr. Coleson makes very clear here that God was communicating the fact that He was in charge, and not the Israelites. He notes, “… the way Jericho was taken, and its devotion to destruction, together undercut the two primary human motivations for war: the lust for glory in battle, and the lust for wealth in the spoils of conquest” (Joshua 6, pg. 6). Therefore, it was necessary for the Israelites to know that God for God to work, our human motivations must be eliminated.
Dr. Coleson also goes into great detail to paint a providential and merciful picture of the sacking of Jericho. The Hebrew terms for those killed in verse 21 are “are very general, and could be understood to exclude babies and young children entirely” (Joshua 6, pg. 7). He continues on by saying that, “In all likelihood, only a handful of adult men and women, who had not taken refuge with Rahab, survived to face Israel’s warriors” (Joshua 6, pg. 7). In this way, the protection of Rahab and family, the walls crumbling from the earthquake, and the ambiguity of the terms for those actually slain do give us a picture for God’s mercy and grace. We must note, however, that the protection is only offered for those who believe in God. God is just and the fact that Rahab “lives among the Israelites to this day” (v. 25), shows us the “breadth and depth of God's grace and mercy” (Coleson, Joshua 6, pg. 7).
B&W add some interesting thoughts to this discussion as well. They note S. Gevirtz’s idea that it could be that by destroying Jericho, purifying it by fire and cursing its resettlement, they were actually consecrating it to the Lord (214). B&W point out this view is lacking in a motivational factor for this place at this time. However, it is worth noting since, up to this point, there have already been events in the story that depict consecration unto the Lord (cf. 3:5, 5:8, 5:10). It is possible that we may also view the destruction of Jericho as a monument, not unlike the stones of remembrance (cf. 4:2-9, 20-24). It might be said of Jericho that God “did this so that all the peoples of the earth might know that the hand of the LORD is powerful and so that [we] might always fear the LORD [our] God" (Joshua 4:24).
Parenthetically, it is also worth noting from B&W where they add that there could also have been a water-borne parasite infecting the spring at Jericho, which is their primary source of water. They also noted research that suggests a high infant mortality rate. Could it be the total destruction of the city and its curse could be a means of protection for others (including the Israelites) by keeping them away from this town and area? We do have an image of protection, of sorts, from the procession of the Ark around Jericho. The ‘honor guard’ of the priests and the Ark are surrounded and protected by the military forces. Clearly God does not need human protection, so what is the point? It may be just the opposite where God is the central figure to the conquests. In this way, it is the army who is being protected, not the other way around. So with this in mind, it’s not too far-fetched that, if the above research would be accurate, that the destruction and curse of Jericho may have been God’s providential grace at work.
I would like to propose that God and war are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I think they can be complimentary when viewed from God’s perspective. Remember, His ways are higher than our ways. Joshua 6 seems to say to us that God will accomplish His will and he will use the best means necessary to do it. It also communicates the extent to which he is faithful to those who are obedient and consecrated to Him (cf. 3:5, 5:8).
As to the total destruction of Jericho, one of the thoughts that came to mind was Mark 12:43-45:
When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, `I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.
Could it be that the destruction and curse of Jericho had spiritual implications? Jericho may have been a foreshadowing to God’s view of sin. I don’t know anything about the spiritual condition of Jericho, but what I do know is that Jericho was not inhabited by God’s people. So, where there God’s people are (in Joshua’s time), the presence of God was manifest with them through the covenant-Ark. So, it would be necessary for the destruction and curse of Jericho (and its unbelieving inhabitants) to prevent any Israelites from settling there and possibly syncretizing. God will not share his presence with sin. Therefore, either one must go…and if it (sin) must go, it will must be completely eradicated or else it will only get worse (Mk. 12:43-45). This is not the only way to look at it, but as I have been thinking about these events in Joshua 6, it may be one such way.
Just in case the song is stuck in your head too - http://youtu.be/wrZkHKANrNw
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Joshua 5:9 - The reproach of Egypt
“Reproach of Egypt” – What is this? What does it mean?
JOS 5:9 "Then the LORD said to Joshua, 'Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you.' So the place has been called Gilgal to this day."
There are many ways already in the book of Joshua that parallel the Exodus events and Moses’ leadership. It is not surprising, then, that God is making it clear that as He was with Moses, so He is enabling Joshua to lead like Moses. We should also be reminded that the people swore an oath that ‘as they had been with (obeyed) Moses, so they would be with (obey) Joshua.’ Ironically, the people were not very obedient to Moses (or God) and so results the 40 years in the desert.
“The reproach of Egypt,” I believe symbolizes several things that would require explanation for people today. Most notably, we would need to explain Israel’s slavery in Egypt. Dr. Coleson begins several thoughts regarding this by stating, “The shame of your slavery in Egypt” is, literally, “the reproach of Egypt.” This phrase may have recalled to the older Israelites their enslavement in Egypt when they were very young, but “slavery” is not actually part of the phrase.” Since the text does not specifically state slavery, I think we are left with a broader, more inclusive “reproach.”
There are several possibilities as to what this “reproach” includes. It may be the ‘reproach’ with which the Egyptians reproached the Israelites through cruel mis-treatment, or the reproach itself of being slaves, the reproach involved in the taunts and jeers of the Egyptians who said that God had brought them out of Egypt to destroy them in the desert, which, therefore, would rest upon them as long as they were condemned to wander restlessly about and to eventually be extinguished in the wilderness. To this point Dr. Coleson adds:
It is important to understand the cultures of honor and shame that existed within the OT. There is certainly no shortage of reasons that Israel, the select people of God, should feel ashamed. These feelings possible stemmed from the same of enslavement, disobedience, being homeless and wandering, and a host of other reasons for failing to meet the standards and norms of what is deemed good, right, appropriate, and desirable. Israel had been held captive by and syncretized to the Egyptians. They had become a displaced people.
The greater importance for our study here, however, is that their reproach (shame) has been rolled away as a result of re-circumcision. According to the Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, “this reproach was rolled away from Israel with the circumcision of the people at Gilgal, inasmuch as this act was a practical declaration of the perfect restoration of the covenant, and a pledge that the Lord would now give them the land of Canaan for their inheritance.” If I understand Dr. Coleson’s commentary, he suggests that for Israel there is no more punishment necessary. They have been redeemed:
Now that Israel has safely crossed the Jordan and is hemmed into the Promised Land, there can be no more shame from thinking that they would perish in the desert as the Egyptians said. “With Israel now safely in the land of Canaan, their disappearance in the wilderness no longer was a possibility”…they have come out of ‘darkness’ and into ‘light’ to be seen by the nations (Coleson, pg. 2).
As I have been thinking about and studying this short passage, there are several things that stand out to me about the significance of the “reproach of Egypt” being “rolled away.”
JOS 5:9 "Then the LORD said to Joshua, 'Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you.' So the place has been called Gilgal to this day."
There are many ways already in the book of Joshua that parallel the Exodus events and Moses’ leadership. It is not surprising, then, that God is making it clear that as He was with Moses, so He is enabling Joshua to lead like Moses. We should also be reminded that the people swore an oath that ‘as they had been with (obeyed) Moses, so they would be with (obey) Joshua.’ Ironically, the people were not very obedient to Moses (or God) and so results the 40 years in the desert.
“The reproach of Egypt,” I believe symbolizes several things that would require explanation for people today. Most notably, we would need to explain Israel’s slavery in Egypt. Dr. Coleson begins several thoughts regarding this by stating, “The shame of your slavery in Egypt” is, literally, “the reproach of Egypt.” This phrase may have recalled to the older Israelites their enslavement in Egypt when they were very young, but “slavery” is not actually part of the phrase.” Since the text does not specifically state slavery, I think we are left with a broader, more inclusive “reproach.”
There are several possibilities as to what this “reproach” includes. It may be the ‘reproach’ with which the Egyptians reproached the Israelites through cruel mis-treatment, or the reproach itself of being slaves, the reproach involved in the taunts and jeers of the Egyptians who said that God had brought them out of Egypt to destroy them in the desert, which, therefore, would rest upon them as long as they were condemned to wander restlessly about and to eventually be extinguished in the wilderness. To this point Dr. Coleson adds:
More probably, this phrase refers to a scenario Moses had raised with God in his several intercessory prayers (Exod 32:12; Num 14:13-16; Deut 9:28). If Israel perished in the wilderness, Moses had argued, the Egyptians would hear about it. They would reason that though God had delivered Israel out of Egypt, He had not been powerful enough to bring them safely through the wilderness. This would bring reproach not only upon Israel, but also upon God. (Joshua 5, pg. 2)
It is important to understand the cultures of honor and shame that existed within the OT. There is certainly no shortage of reasons that Israel, the select people of God, should feel ashamed. These feelings possible stemmed from the same of enslavement, disobedience, being homeless and wandering, and a host of other reasons for failing to meet the standards and norms of what is deemed good, right, appropriate, and desirable. Israel had been held captive by and syncretized to the Egyptians. They had become a displaced people.
The greater importance for our study here, however, is that their reproach (shame) has been rolled away as a result of re-circumcision. According to the Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, “this reproach was rolled away from Israel with the circumcision of the people at Gilgal, inasmuch as this act was a practical declaration of the perfect restoration of the covenant, and a pledge that the Lord would now give them the land of Canaan for their inheritance.” If I understand Dr. Coleson’s commentary, he suggests that for Israel there is no more punishment necessary. They have been redeemed:
“Moreover, the reproach of slavery had been “rolled away” when God liberated Israel, administering disastrous justice upon Egypt in the process. There was no reproach left to Israel (if ever there had been any) because of her sojourn in Egypt” (Joshua 5, pg. 2).
Now that Israel has safely crossed the Jordan and is hemmed into the Promised Land, there can be no more shame from thinking that they would perish in the desert as the Egyptians said. “With Israel now safely in the land of Canaan, their disappearance in the wilderness no longer was a possibility”…they have come out of ‘darkness’ and into ‘light’ to be seen by the nations (Coleson, pg. 2).
As I have been thinking about and studying this short passage, there are several things that stand out to me about the significance of the “reproach of Egypt” being “rolled away.”
- It was a Rite of Passage. Ceremonially speaking, circumcision allowed them to begin a new chapter in their history. According to the promise, they have also began a new chapter by fulfilling what had been promised long ago. In one sense, they have ‘arrived.’
- It was a Purification Rite. By being enslaved and syncretizing with the Egyptians, they had become, I think, a ‘defiled people’ – or at least people in need of purification. In this way, the allotted time and actions necessary for purification is now complete – the reproach is purified and re-consecration (or re-instatement) is necessary to rejoin fellowship with God.
- It was a Re-establishment of the covenant. This, I’m sure, is discussed in more detail in other posts.
- It was the end of God’s ‘wrath’ or judgment on being forbidden to enter the Promised Land. In this way the iniquity is pardoned by reaffirming their faithfulness and obedience to God via the covenant.
- It was to symbolize they are no longer enslaved to Egypt (or to anything other than God himself). They are now ‘enslaved’ to God via spiritual circumcision. [Though earlier noted, there is no mention of slavery in this verse, but contextually it is applicable.]
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Canon as a Model for Biblical Education (Congregational Discipleship class)
Assignment: Identify and read one of the recommended readings that informs a critical concern you possess regarding a biblical, historical, or theological understanding of faithful discipleship
"The Creative Word: Canon as a Model for Biblical Education" by Walter Brueggemann
The three-fold view of discipleship, as presented by Brueggemann in “The Creative Word,” shows how Israel utilized the Torah, the Prophets, and the Wisdom writings in their educational processes. Even more, those who toiled over the order of canon presented the books in such a way so as to be an instructional method/process itself. Combined, we can see how the OT especially is a solid method of curriculum development.
The Torah is utilized by disclosing information about God. This information is both presented confidently and received at face value. This creates identity and community. ‘This is who God is, this is who we are, and this is what we believe – period.’ There is little room for doubts or subjectivism.
When the Prophets are taught, they challenge our old ways of thinking (about God, the Torah, etc.). They are intended to deconstruct what we thought we knew in order to create a new way of thinking about God. The Prophets challenge and disrupt our status quo. They are not concerned with scope and sequence (per se); rather, they are concerned about revelation and obedience. The Prophets move us into new ways of thinking and new modes of operating.
The Wisdom writings help guide us into making our own discernments about God and faith. They take the mystery of God and life and present us with just enough truth to equip us for making moral and ethical choices on our own. They help us to see the connectedness of life, i.e., cause and effect. The Psalms, as a result, are expressive of this canonical-educational process.
So, as we look at the method of discipleship curriculum of the canon, we see that Israel was not concerned with maintaining any status quo. In fact, dissonance, critique, and challenge are a vital part of the educational process. But it is not challenge for the sake of challenge. Instead, it is challenge that leads into wisdom that helps empower the learner to discern on his/her own from an informed faith perspective. I’ve not come across any curriculum with such promise and potential.
"The Creative Word: Canon as a Model for Biblical Education" by Walter Brueggemann
The three-fold view of discipleship, as presented by Brueggemann in “The Creative Word,” shows how Israel utilized the Torah, the Prophets, and the Wisdom writings in their educational processes. Even more, those who toiled over the order of canon presented the books in such a way so as to be an instructional method/process itself. Combined, we can see how the OT especially is a solid method of curriculum development.
The Torah is utilized by disclosing information about God. This information is both presented confidently and received at face value. This creates identity and community. ‘This is who God is, this is who we are, and this is what we believe – period.’ There is little room for doubts or subjectivism.
When the Prophets are taught, they challenge our old ways of thinking (about God, the Torah, etc.). They are intended to deconstruct what we thought we knew in order to create a new way of thinking about God. The Prophets challenge and disrupt our status quo. They are not concerned with scope and sequence (per se); rather, they are concerned about revelation and obedience. The Prophets move us into new ways of thinking and new modes of operating.
The Wisdom writings help guide us into making our own discernments about God and faith. They take the mystery of God and life and present us with just enough truth to equip us for making moral and ethical choices on our own. They help us to see the connectedness of life, i.e., cause and effect. The Psalms, as a result, are expressive of this canonical-educational process.
So, as we look at the method of discipleship curriculum of the canon, we see that Israel was not concerned with maintaining any status quo. In fact, dissonance, critique, and challenge are a vital part of the educational process. But it is not challenge for the sake of challenge. Instead, it is challenge that leads into wisdom that helps empower the learner to discern on his/her own from an informed faith perspective. I’ve not come across any curriculum with such promise and potential.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Response to Chardon Scool Shooting (Intro to Chaplaincy class)
Assignment:
A tragic timely event to discuss--the school shooting this week here in Ohio. Here's the question I'd like you to think about--Imagine you are the chaplain for the facility where the shooter is now being held. First, what do you feel as you anticipate your meeting with him (he hasn't asked for you, but you are by job description expected to go to him)? How will you "be present" to him? Second, shift the scenario and imagine you are the parents of the shooter. What feelings and thoughts now come to you? Try to be concise, but candid.
As the Chaplain:
I would understand that he is being judged by others. Therefore, I would have to be intentional to communicate that my purpose is to not be judgmental. In this way, I would need to prepare myself to show him the respect and dignity due to all people.
When present with him, the active listening we’ve been discussing would be vitally important. Being empathetic, but also honest and truthful about the reality is important. I would recognize that he is hurt and broken. He needs to experience healing and restoration from whatever he feels is so lacking. He needs to see any kind of hope – hope that extends from his past and into his future.
From a spiritual perspective, I recognize that worldly people engage in worldly and sinful activity. The only ‘antidote,’ of course, is Christ. Ephesians 4:17-19 highlights ways in which we can understand why he would do such a thing, “So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity [a.k.a., worldly desires], with a continual lust for more.” The ways of the world are darkened to the light of Christ, I would want to help build a bridge from the darkness to the light.
As the parent:
I would be utterly heart-broken. I would probably be running so many “what-if’s” through my mind about things I could/should have done differently. I would likely feel like I have failed in many regards: failed to spend time with him, failed to ensure he felt loved and nurtured, failed to make sure his ‘love tank’ was full (5 Love Languages), failed to ‘know’ him – really ‘know’ him, and more.
I would feel angry. First at myself, for all the above reasons, and then for my son, who ‘should know better’ and appalled at this terrible decision. I would feel angry over those kids at school and the many situations that perpetuated his hurt.
I would feel incredible remorse and guilt for all the above reasons, yes, but primarily for the families of the deceased. Despite the bleak future that awaits my son, at least he is still alive and has some hope yet for a changed future. The dead have no more hope.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Don't Forget the Ark-Bearers (Joshua class)
Joshua 3-4
It is certainly true that the presence of God as symbolized through the Ark of the Covenant takes center stage in these chapters. It is less about the beginnings of the military conquest and more about the faith journey of Israel. As B&W say, the Ark was “a symbol of ‘sanctuary-presence’ of the Divine Warrior” (180) and the “Divine King’s portable palace” (159). Then, as Dr. Coleson notes, “Israel knew God led them because they saw the Ark going before them” (Joshua 3, pg. 2). The Ark clearly holds its rightful place of prominence in the on-going story of Israel.
But we must give another thought to those Levite-Priests who were charged with bearing the Ark in and to its place of prominence. It’s as if we can see a foreshadowing of Jesus’ words in Luke 12:48, “from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” The Levite-priests were charged with the high responsibility of bearing the Covenant-Ark before the entire nation. While the nation of Israel looked to the Ark for faith, hope, and encouragement, they not only saw the Ark, but also those who were carrying the Ark. With this position comes the high demand for faithful obedience.
The faithful obedience of the Ark-bearers communicates to Israel (and to us) the importance of actions that require trust in God’s word. In 3:6, they begin their journey of faith by preceding the nation toward the Promised Land. They were the vanguard and the trailblazers. In 3:8, they are commanded to “go and stand in the river.” Dr. Coleson says, “By carrying the Ark into the water first, the priests would show their faith, or at least their obedience. We may go further and say that when God clearly directs God's people to act, obedience is faith.” (Joshua 3, pg. 3).
As the Ark-bearers made their procession forward, the waters of the Jordan would not recede until the soles of their feet touched the water (3:13). This shows the kind of trust and commitment necessary for Israel to enter into the Promised Land. After all, they have “never traveled this way before” (3:4). Israel (and all of God’s people) must be willing to take God at His word and be invested with a whole commitment that what He says is true. In this way, the priests physically displayed their obedience to God while at the same time communicating God’s faithfulness to His word and His people.
Finally, in 3:17, we should, as Christian leaders, place ourselves in the position of the priests as they stand in the middle of a ‘heaped up,’ flooded river with all their friends, family, and neighbors passing by. The people are looking to God in faith, hope, and trust, but they are ‘seeing’ them. I can imagine a scene reminiscent of when Aaron and Hur helped to hold up Moses’ arms while Joshua fought the Amalekites (Ex. 17:10-13). For Israel to fight the battles of faith that lie before them, they need the assurance of the presence of God. With that, however, God invites people through whom he can minister through – and the Levites help to fulfill this position to their people.
It’s not difficult to see the application for us today. As Christian leaders, we want people to see God in and through us. We don’t want to be the objects for their faith, but we are certainly the representatives and emissaries through whom God is inviting us to raise Him up. There is nothing within us that is valuable or useful except our faithful obedience and trust in God’s word and nature. We must remember that with this high responsibility that has been given to us comes the high demand of living wholly committed to God. There will times when we are asked to go and “stand in the river.”
It is certainly true that the presence of God as symbolized through the Ark of the Covenant takes center stage in these chapters. It is less about the beginnings of the military conquest and more about the faith journey of Israel. As B&W say, the Ark was “a symbol of ‘sanctuary-presence’ of the Divine Warrior” (180) and the “Divine King’s portable palace” (159). Then, as Dr. Coleson notes, “Israel knew God led them because they saw the Ark going before them” (Joshua 3, pg. 2). The Ark clearly holds its rightful place of prominence in the on-going story of Israel.
But we must give another thought to those Levite-Priests who were charged with bearing the Ark in and to its place of prominence. It’s as if we can see a foreshadowing of Jesus’ words in Luke 12:48, “from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” The Levite-priests were charged with the high responsibility of bearing the Covenant-Ark before the entire nation. While the nation of Israel looked to the Ark for faith, hope, and encouragement, they not only saw the Ark, but also those who were carrying the Ark. With this position comes the high demand for faithful obedience.
The faithful obedience of the Ark-bearers communicates to Israel (and to us) the importance of actions that require trust in God’s word. In 3:6, they begin their journey of faith by preceding the nation toward the Promised Land. They were the vanguard and the trailblazers. In 3:8, they are commanded to “go and stand in the river.” Dr. Coleson says, “By carrying the Ark into the water first, the priests would show their faith, or at least their obedience. We may go further and say that when God clearly directs God's people to act, obedience is faith.” (Joshua 3, pg. 3).
As the Ark-bearers made their procession forward, the waters of the Jordan would not recede until the soles of their feet touched the water (3:13). This shows the kind of trust and commitment necessary for Israel to enter into the Promised Land. After all, they have “never traveled this way before” (3:4). Israel (and all of God’s people) must be willing to take God at His word and be invested with a whole commitment that what He says is true. In this way, the priests physically displayed their obedience to God while at the same time communicating God’s faithfulness to His word and His people.
Finally, in 3:17, we should, as Christian leaders, place ourselves in the position of the priests as they stand in the middle of a ‘heaped up,’ flooded river with all their friends, family, and neighbors passing by. The people are looking to God in faith, hope, and trust, but they are ‘seeing’ them. I can imagine a scene reminiscent of when Aaron and Hur helped to hold up Moses’ arms while Joshua fought the Amalekites (Ex. 17:10-13). For Israel to fight the battles of faith that lie before them, they need the assurance of the presence of God. With that, however, God invites people through whom he can minister through – and the Levites help to fulfill this position to their people.
It’s not difficult to see the application for us today. As Christian leaders, we want people to see God in and through us. We don’t want to be the objects for their faith, but we are certainly the representatives and emissaries through whom God is inviting us to raise Him up. There is nothing within us that is valuable or useful except our faithful obedience and trust in God’s word and nature. We must remember that with this high responsibility that has been given to us comes the high demand of living wholly committed to God. There will times when we are asked to go and “stand in the river.”
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Outward focused vs. Inward Focus (Congregational Discipleship class)
I think that we often tie ourselves down with "either/or" thinking instead of "both/and" thinking. The life of any church will be grounded in being missionally minded (or as I was saying, 'outward focused'). Our churches must keep in mind that a huge part of our mission in this world is to those "outside the sheep pin" (Jn. 10:16). The other part, I agree, must be to nurture our congregations in discipleship (more on that in a bit).
As I interpreted Foster's 4 Educational Tasks, I saw the words (in #1) "vocation," (in #2) "in the world," (in #3) "mission," and (in #4) "exercise ['practice,' 76-78] of the imagination" (pp. 125-6). These are very 'outward focused,' missional terms.
For me, the both/and part comes in to view when we recognize that our responsibility is to both the world and to believers. The Great Commission commands us to "go and then to "make disciples" and then to "teach." So we must have avenues (programs!
) that help us to accomplish both these tasks. I think the key questions are "when," "where," and "how" will we accomplish these in ways that are best suited to the purpose of our mission and the program. For example, I don't necessarily think that for most churches Sunday mornings are the best time for fomal liturgy (for some churches, yes, but for most, I don't think so). It may be more educationally appropriate to accomplish liturgy in small discipleship groups (or another discipleship format) that are more intimate and more 'inward focused' - so to speak. In my experience, most people outside the church are either unaware of liturgy or unmoved by it. In this way, Sunday mornings (as a primary "open door" program for inviting/engaging newcomers) are probably not the best times for this. The task, then, as I see it is to nurture that newcomer into a group or program where liturgy can be explained properly and experienced significantly. We need to nurture and escalate people from one level of "seeing and hearing" to the next (55-61). Liturgy, as you noted, is just one example we can plug into this conversation for spiritual growth. There are certainly many others, but I view the process as similar.
[Appended] When I said 'liturgy' I was thinking in a more narrow and formal sense of the term - as in 'Liturgical.' That is not the only way to think. In fact, the whole movement of a worship service is in itself a form of liturgy and teaching. The order in which we structure our services teaches people something about who we are, who God is, and what we believe about him. The content and hidden assumptions of our worship services also teaches (for good or for bad). One example, offering, begs us to evaluate what we are teaching people when we collect the offering. How can we use the offering collection as a teaching tool or meaningful experience to both the believer and the visitor? Or, should we eliminate the offering from our service altogether because it doesn't fit our mission of the Sunday morning service? Either way, however we handle the offering teaches something to people - so what do we want them to learn? (Rhetorical question).
I was never a big fan of the term 'seeker sensitive' - but I have used it just like everyone else. Again, I think we can conduct our worship services in ways that both provide the depth and richness of an encounter with God and still reach 'seekers.' In fact, the more authentic and meaningful the experience, the more likely visitors will come back. People want/need/crave authenticity and depth. They need to see people who are fully committed to their faith, who have depth of transformation in their relationship with God, and who genuinely love and care about other people. That's the best liturgy of all! Rote services do little to enliven and invigorate people. I guess our conversation has turned back to touch on elements of Foster's Flaws #'s 3-4 in the church (27-33 - especially "cultural captivity," pg. 31).
As I interpreted Foster's 4 Educational Tasks, I saw the words (in #1) "vocation," (in #2) "in the world," (in #3) "mission," and (in #4) "exercise ['practice,' 76-78] of the imagination" (pp. 125-6). These are very 'outward focused,' missional terms.
For me, the both/and part comes in to view when we recognize that our responsibility is to both the world and to believers. The Great Commission commands us to "go and then to "make disciples" and then to "teach." So we must have avenues (programs!
) that help us to accomplish both these tasks. I think the key questions are "when," "where," and "how" will we accomplish these in ways that are best suited to the purpose of our mission and the program. For example, I don't necessarily think that for most churches Sunday mornings are the best time for fomal liturgy (for some churches, yes, but for most, I don't think so). It may be more educationally appropriate to accomplish liturgy in small discipleship groups (or another discipleship format) that are more intimate and more 'inward focused' - so to speak. In my experience, most people outside the church are either unaware of liturgy or unmoved by it. In this way, Sunday mornings (as a primary "open door" program for inviting/engaging newcomers) are probably not the best times for this. The task, then, as I see it is to nurture that newcomer into a group or program where liturgy can be explained properly and experienced significantly. We need to nurture and escalate people from one level of "seeing and hearing" to the next (55-61). Liturgy, as you noted, is just one example we can plug into this conversation for spiritual growth. There are certainly many others, but I view the process as similar.[Appended] When I said 'liturgy' I was thinking in a more narrow and formal sense of the term - as in 'Liturgical.' That is not the only way to think. In fact, the whole movement of a worship service is in itself a form of liturgy and teaching. The order in which we structure our services teaches people something about who we are, who God is, and what we believe about him. The content and hidden assumptions of our worship services also teaches (for good or for bad). One example, offering, begs us to evaluate what we are teaching people when we collect the offering. How can we use the offering collection as a teaching tool or meaningful experience to both the believer and the visitor? Or, should we eliminate the offering from our service altogether because it doesn't fit our mission of the Sunday morning service? Either way, however we handle the offering teaches something to people - so what do we want them to learn? (Rhetorical question).
I was never a big fan of the term 'seeker sensitive' - but I have used it just like everyone else. Again, I think we can conduct our worship services in ways that both provide the depth and richness of an encounter with God and still reach 'seekers.' In fact, the more authentic and meaningful the experience, the more likely visitors will come back. People want/need/crave authenticity and depth. They need to see people who are fully committed to their faith, who have depth of transformation in their relationship with God, and who genuinely love and care about other people. That's the best liturgy of all! Rote services do little to enliven and invigorate people. I guess our conversation has turned back to touch on elements of Foster's Flaws #'s 3-4 in the church (27-33 - especially "cultural captivity," pg. 31).
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Joshua 1 - The Promised Land
1:2 "Moses my servant is dead. Now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River into the land I am about to give to them--to the Israelites."
1:2 “. . . the land which I am giving to them. . . .”
Also note:
1:6 “. . . the land which I swore to their fathers to give them.”
1:11 “. . . the land which the LORD your God is giving you, to possess it.’”
1:13 “. . . ‘The LORD your God gives you rest and will give you this land.’”
“Giving” – “In Fief” as in fiefdom. We recall the medieval feudal system where land would be entrusted (even for generations) in return for loyal service as a vassal. The residents had the right to hold the land as long as they worked it. The property was granted to a vassal for its maintenance by the lord in return for service. In the case of the Promised Land, God is establishing a “feudal” covenant (perhaps in this instance, “contract” may, in fact, be a better term) with Israel.
The land is a certainly a gracious gift, but it is not an outright grant. It is an “exchange for the promise of service in the future” (121). This land “contract” is thus dependent upon Israel’s faithfulness to the covenant. The divine promise of the land to the forefathers (according to the north Israelite school – see 41-43) was qualified by the mosaic covenant. There was no permanent possession of the land promised. In fact, possession of the Promised Land depended on Israel’s fidelity. Safety and “rest” (vs. 13 – also “peace”) was no certainty unless they served obediently. This land gift bears great responsibility to create a covenant society who acts with fidelity to the covenant.
It is important to note that the Promised Land, the land of Yahweh, elicits images of his “abode.” The Promised Land is a “sanctuary” and a symbol of his earthly rein – a political and cosmic rule of the kingdom of God (19). As Dr. Coleson’s commentary points out, “The land of Israel was always more than a physical entity; it was also a central part of the ‘spiritual’ inheritance of Israel” (page 2). In this way, our thoughts will likely be drawn to Hebrews 4:8-9 (“Sabbath rest”) whereby there is a final completion and occupation of God’s heavenly land reserved for his faithful people.1:2 “in fief”
1:2 “. . . the land which I am giving to them. . . .”
Also note:
1:6 “. . . the land which I swore to their fathers to give them.”
1:11 “. . . the land which the LORD your God is giving you, to possess it.’”
1:13 “. . . ‘The LORD your God gives you rest and will give you this land.’”
“Giving” – “In Fief” as in fiefdom. We recall the medieval feudal system where land would be entrusted (even for generations) in return for loyal service as a vassal. The residents had the right to hold the land as long as they worked it. The property was granted to a vassal for its maintenance by the lord in return for service. In the case of the Promised Land, God is establishing a “feudal” covenant (perhaps in this instance, “contract” may, in fact, be a better term) with Israel.
The land is a certainly a gracious gift, but it is not an outright grant. It is an “exchange for the promise of service in the future” (121). This land “contract” is thus dependent upon Israel’s faithfulness to the covenant. The divine promise of the land to the forefathers (according to the north Israelite school – see 41-43) was qualified by the mosaic covenant. There was no permanent possession of the land promised. In fact, possession of the Promised Land depended on Israel’s fidelity. Safety and “rest” (vs. 13 – also “peace”) was no certainty unless they served obediently. This land gift bears great responsibility to create a covenant society who acts with fidelity to the covenant.
It is important to note that the Promised Land, the land of Yahweh, elicits images of his “abode.” The Promised Land is a “sanctuary” and a symbol of his earthly rein – a political and cosmic rule of the kingdom of God (19). As Dr. Coleson’s commentary points out, “The land of Israel was always more than a physical entity; it was also a central part of the ‘spiritual’ inheritance of Israel” (page 2). In this way, our thoughts will likely be drawn to Hebrews 4:8-9 (“Sabbath rest”) whereby there is a final completion and occupation of God’s heavenly land reserved for his faithful people.1:2 “in fief”
Saturday, February 11, 2012
When you don't know what to say (Chaplaincy Class)
"What do you say when you don't know what to say? What might be going on in times of silence? Where do these thoughts take you in scripture?"
I would agree with Paget & McCormack (P&M) that we shouldn't try to fix the situation or offer platitudes (10). I would also affirm the power of presence and silence. However, P&M also state that keeping watch involves "active emotional and spiritual presence" (9). While there will certainly be appropriate and necessary moments of what I would consider passive silence, as ministers I think there are situation-appropriate ways to actively administer a message of hope, encouragement, and/or comfort. In times when we don't know what to say are prime times when our voices (thoughts, advice, words of comfot, etc.) need to yield to the voice of God (specifically scripture). These, of course, need to be contextualized and guided by the voice of the Holy Spirit in love and grace and full of compassion and honesty.
Times of silence are prime opportunities for the Spirit to speak to everyone. We need to allow Him the room to speak for Himself (on his own accord), but I think God speaks powerfully through his word. When I don't know what to say, I ask myself "what does scripture say?" One way to avoid the "platitude-ness" is to approach people with the Word with honesty and transparency. For one example, Hebrews 11 shows us a historical timeline of the pain of loss and disappointment for people (and for the blessed people of God no less) but rather the power of faithfulness - the faithfulness of God and the blessings of being faithful to God through our pain.
We must show that we hurt with people. We must respect and value the ministry of presence (and silence), but I also think that as ministers of God people want, need, and expect us to carry a message from Him to them.
I would agree with Paget & McCormack (P&M) that we shouldn't try to fix the situation or offer platitudes (10). I would also affirm the power of presence and silence. However, P&M also state that keeping watch involves "active emotional and spiritual presence" (9). While there will certainly be appropriate and necessary moments of what I would consider passive silence, as ministers I think there are situation-appropriate ways to actively administer a message of hope, encouragement, and/or comfort. In times when we don't know what to say are prime times when our voices (thoughts, advice, words of comfot, etc.) need to yield to the voice of God (specifically scripture). These, of course, need to be contextualized and guided by the voice of the Holy Spirit in love and grace and full of compassion and honesty.
Times of silence are prime opportunities for the Spirit to speak to everyone. We need to allow Him the room to speak for Himself (on his own accord), but I think God speaks powerfully through his word. When I don't know what to say, I ask myself "what does scripture say?" One way to avoid the "platitude-ness" is to approach people with the Word with honesty and transparency. For one example, Hebrews 11 shows us a historical timeline of the pain of loss and disappointment for people (and for the blessed people of God no less) but rather the power of faithfulness - the faithfulness of God and the blessings of being faithful to God through our pain.
We must show that we hurt with people. We must respect and value the ministry of presence (and silence), but I also think that as ministers of God people want, need, and expect us to carry a message from Him to them.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Connecting the home and the church (Congregational Discipleship class)
[A response] It is a struggle to connect the home and the church. Just recently we started our first small group home group in our youth ministry. One of my parents is starting it and it is seeing some good initial success. Our goal is to move our mid-week program into home groups - but this is not necessarily what I think we are talking about (as good as it is to involve parents as ministry leaders within their own homes).
The book, "The Godbearing Life" describes the one-eared Mickey Mouse where one smaller group is barely integrated into the larger group (skimming the surface). I view this largely as the relationship between home and the church. Like many, I view the home as a microcosm for the church. The key, then - I think, is to have the home reflective of the larger church. In many ways the programs of the church (as enrichment education - 30) can really work against the church. Many churches offer all the age-specific ministries (kids, teens, young adult, men, women, senior), so if their "needs" are supposedly being met (27), then why do anything at home. Foster also makes a very good point that these ministries are not typically unified under a single banner of mission, vision, or training (34).
It would seem that an initial starting point for connecting these two would fundamentally come from the overall church's mission/vision/purpose statement and a ruthless adherence to it by all the area ministries. I don't think we need to do away with age-specific ministries, but by changing our values and mission to say "we all believe XYZ and that XYZ starts in the home" (or something much more eloquent than that) communicates the expectation that our church body believes faith starts at home, regardless of the home environment. Starting at home could be communicated as simply personal devotions for some home environments. Everybody can do something at home.
I understood Foster's argument on marketing to be a lack of curriculum that substantively teaches the depth of scripture (for several reasons he lists). If this is a correct reading, I am finding "marketing" as less of an excuse. There are lots of (I believe) good curriculum available for a variety of purposes (family, kids, teens, adults, etc.) that could translate into different settings (i.e., church or home). However, cost is certainly a factor, accessibility is another factor (as a full-time pastor, I have more time and flexibility to spend a few hours searching and researching [top of 26]), and denominational affiliation is another (I have found and used great curriculum from other denominations).
Finally, yes, certainly the collapse of the ecology, the rise of individualism (24), and other external and cultural factors put immense pressure on the task of discipleship.
The book, "The Godbearing Life" describes the one-eared Mickey Mouse where one smaller group is barely integrated into the larger group (skimming the surface). I view this largely as the relationship between home and the church. Like many, I view the home as a microcosm for the church. The key, then - I think, is to have the home reflective of the larger church. In many ways the programs of the church (as enrichment education - 30) can really work against the church. Many churches offer all the age-specific ministries (kids, teens, young adult, men, women, senior), so if their "needs" are supposedly being met (27), then why do anything at home. Foster also makes a very good point that these ministries are not typically unified under a single banner of mission, vision, or training (34).
It would seem that an initial starting point for connecting these two would fundamentally come from the overall church's mission/vision/purpose statement and a ruthless adherence to it by all the area ministries. I don't think we need to do away with age-specific ministries, but by changing our values and mission to say "we all believe XYZ and that XYZ starts in the home" (or something much more eloquent than that) communicates the expectation that our church body believes faith starts at home, regardless of the home environment. Starting at home could be communicated as simply personal devotions for some home environments. Everybody can do something at home.
I understood Foster's argument on marketing to be a lack of curriculum that substantively teaches the depth of scripture (for several reasons he lists). If this is a correct reading, I am finding "marketing" as less of an excuse. There are lots of (I believe) good curriculum available for a variety of purposes (family, kids, teens, adults, etc.) that could translate into different settings (i.e., church or home). However, cost is certainly a factor, accessibility is another factor (as a full-time pastor, I have more time and flexibility to spend a few hours searching and researching [top of 26]), and denominational affiliation is another (I have found and used great curriculum from other denominations).
Finally, yes, certainly the collapse of the ecology, the rise of individualism (24), and other external and cultural factors put immense pressure on the task of discipleship.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Hymns vs. Praise Music (Congregational Discipleship class)
[A response] I would agree that there is such a strong attachment to music and memory. The church I grew up in sang mostly hymns and there is a lot of good theology in them. At the same time, there is some poor theology in many hymns when looked at with a critical eye. To be fair, a lot of new music is no better.
I take the perspective that music is only a tool - a vehicle. I can worship (and God can move) to hymns just as much as he can to contemporary music. In fact, God has spoken to me through secular music. Music is cultural identity and, I think, should be viewed as such. Foster admonishes us to be cautious of our cultural biases and maintaining the status quo (31-33). I think music is a way of maintaining the status quo since it is so closely associated to memory and culture groups (i.e., the 80's lunch-time music radio is now giving way to 90's lunch-time music). This is why I say it's only a vehicle.
As I had to re-read this week's assignment earlier today, I noticed something that I had missed earlier - that is, Foster's somewhat-subtle focus on community and relationships. In one instance he notes that programs "focus on instant rather than sustained intimacy" (30, emphasis mine). A couple of sentences down he mentions the "relationship with a transcendent reality or in the historicity of our common life" (30). I would agree that music fits into the "historicity of our common life," but music is but one small part of a much larger picture.
What I think one thing Foster is saying in pages is that discipleship is caught more than it is taught. More than any program or tool, a mentoring-type of relationship with another person in the faith is what should be driving our discipleship. We need more "sustained intimacy" with God and others who are intimate with Him (in appropriate ways, of course).
I take the perspective that music is only a tool - a vehicle. I can worship (and God can move) to hymns just as much as he can to contemporary music. In fact, God has spoken to me through secular music. Music is cultural identity and, I think, should be viewed as such. Foster admonishes us to be cautious of our cultural biases and maintaining the status quo (31-33). I think music is a way of maintaining the status quo since it is so closely associated to memory and culture groups (i.e., the 80's lunch-time music radio is now giving way to 90's lunch-time music). This is why I say it's only a vehicle.
As I had to re-read this week's assignment earlier today, I noticed something that I had missed earlier - that is, Foster's somewhat-subtle focus on community and relationships. In one instance he notes that programs "focus on instant rather than sustained intimacy" (30, emphasis mine). A couple of sentences down he mentions the "relationship with a transcendent reality or in the historicity of our common life" (30). I would agree that music fits into the "historicity of our common life," but music is but one small part of a much larger picture.
What I think one thing Foster is saying in pages is that discipleship is caught more than it is taught. More than any program or tool, a mentoring-type of relationship with another person in the faith is what should be driving our discipleship. We need more "sustained intimacy" with God and others who are intimate with Him (in appropriate ways, of course
).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)