Wednesday, 18 November 2009

  • Single and the Sanctuary

    I still have a few more blog post ideas, but I'll have to put them on hold for a bit.  As a teaser, one of the thoughts are on the Willow Creek Reveal survey (read here: http://tatumweb.com/blog/2008/06/05/reveal/ for some info).  I'll post thoughts on that at a future time.

    But, for my 10th and final post, the topic that used to be the bread and butter for comments/eProps/etc., relationships!  Then again, I'm taking flip side view of that and that is, the non-relationship: being single.  And, the post may end up being very analytical and scientific, so, perhaps not that interesting.  And, xanga and blogs are not what they used to be, so again, perhaps no views.  But in any case....

    I was trying to think of a few titles for this post.  Something that would grab the eye and still convey what I was trying to write about.  Higmeista came up with: chaste and the church.  Great title, but not quite what I was trying to go for.  Also thought about, flirt and the fellowship hall, but again, might hit the wrong idea.  In any case, on to the post.

    I was trying to think about why there are such a large number of singles in the church today and why that number seems to be growing.  I was thinking about it in terms of grid and group (see this post for a primer) and was thinking we are unaware of the rules for relating with one another (grid).  We are afraid of the consequences of it not working out (group).

    I believe this happens because when we're growing up in our context, we are aware of the rules.  But when we are placed in this new church context, one that we have not grown up in and with other people, all we are aware of is the ambiguous, unspoken rule of "don't be shady."  Most people play it safe in consideration of the group and interpret it as "never interact" but if we never interact, nothing will ever happen.

    The solution to this is (as with the fellowship hall post) we can either educate the people involved in how to relate with each other (make the grid level aware) or provide the structure for interaction (supply the grid).  Simple short term structures may prove to be fruitful, for example, a speed dating event or something along those lines if we can get past the stigma (make that interaction acceptable in the grid level).  Education of the rules for interaction would best be done with indirect communication and would be difficult but better in the long term...OR, I could try to spell them out for you right here:

    [to be continued]

  • Individualism and Consumerism

    I was reading the book The Next Evangelicalism and the author, Soong-Chan Rah proposes that the 2 greatest sins of North America that have crept into the church are individualism and consumerism.  Here are some of his points.

    Regarding individualism, we have turned God into something small that fits inside our own personal world.  While it is true that God is close and personal, He is also the God that transcends our own lives and is larger than the whole universe.  Rah says, "Even small group ministry, which is supposed to be the primary expression of community life...often yields a narcissistic, indivdualistic focus.  Small groups become a place of support and counsel rather than a place where Scripture challenges teh participants towards kingdom living" (p. 37).

    Consumerism, closely related to individualism, also creeps into our mentality towards church.  When choosing a church, the word "shopping" is used, and individuals will entertain the idea of leaving a church if it is not meeting his or her personal and indiviudal needs.  "We're purchasing a product rather than committing to the body of Christ" (p. 47).

    I think I largely agree with his ideas, even if he writes them from a seemingly angry perspective.  But there is insight and perspective to be gained from his writing.  He also notes how in trying to cater to the individualism and consumerism, pastors may cater their message to what will meet the needs of some individuals but that is not what the purpose of delivering the Word should be.  It should be what God needs to say to the whole community, not what individuals need to hear.

    However, a lot of my writing has been about how we can better meet the people in our community by meeting the people in the culture they are most familiar with.  The idea is to remove cultural barriers to worship and let the Gospel be its own tripping stone rather than culture itself.  But in trying to cater to the cultural needs of individuals, am I feeding the consumerism and individualism that is talked of here?

    The tension is this: on the one hand, you want people to worship God as freely as possible, not to be hindered by cultural forms or being distracted by anything else.  On the other hand, you do not want to cater to people's tastes and give them what their itching ears want to hear.  How is this tension resolved?

    I have not had time to flesh out my thoughts regarding this but perhaps your thoughts will help me shape my own.  Would love to hear what your thoughts are.

  • The Fellowship Hall

    How do you feel about the fellowship hall?  Do you enjoy the time after service in the large room with the drinks and snacks as time to catch up with others, meet new people, and partake in some fellowship as the name might suggest?  Or do you have feelings of nervousness, dread, and fear?  If it is the former, Praise God!  You're making the fellowship hall what it is in theory meant to do.  But if it is the latter, you are not alone.  I've had a number of conversations about the fellowship hall and many people are intimidated by it.

    I don't think people were intimidated when we were a smaller church in a smaller building.  Maybe it's something about the large ceiling space and warehouse-y feel?  But then again, people were intimidated by it at the old, warmer feeling building.  So, I don't think it's the space.  Maybe it's the number of people there now?  We feel guilty that we may not know everyone with the large number of people?  Perhaps.  Please, voice your feelings about the fellowship hall (anonymously on seminarythoughts.wordpress.com if you like) and let me know how you feel about it and why.

    My theory is that we dislike the fellowship hall because it is does not meet us in the type of culture we are accustomed to.  Let me explain.

    As I've talked about on other occassions, there are 2 dimensions to culture: grid and group.  Briefly, group is the amount of importance the group as a whole plays to the individuals and grid is the amount of structure in relating with others there may be.  When people are afraid of the fellowship hall because they might offend someone for not remembering their name, being afraid of offending is high group, remembering the name is part of grid.  When people are afraid to meet new people because they don't know what to say, that is a fear based in not understanding the structure in relating with others and that is an indicator of high grid.  Generally speaking, North American culture is low group, low grid: every individual can do whatever they like and say whatever they want and no one will take offense because everyone understands it is the right of the individual for personal expression.  Generally speaking, Korean culture is high group, high grid: people worry if they are to address using the honorifics, use korean "noona/unni" and "hyung/oppa", say the right words, do the right things(use 2 hands when receiving or giving something, etc.).  All those unspoken, unwritten rules are high grid, and the worry of offending someone is high group.

    Our church is predominantly Korean-American which means we're somewhere in-between these two seemingly opposing cultures.  But, I think the Korean in us kicks in when we go to the fellowship hall.  Our fears of offending others take over, and we tend to do what we are familiar with and what won't offend.  The fellowship hall structure as we are familiar with it is a very low group, low grid structure.  You go into a big room and talk with whoever you like and do whatever you want.  The high group high grid person in us gets uncomfortable with that.

    How then, can we make the time are more genuine time of fellowship?  Remove the cultural barriers that are making it ineffective.  Contextualize it, as it were.  I suggest we make our fellowship time a bit more structured.  Raise our grid level a bit.  We can either do this by teaching our people how to interact with others (explicitly or implicitly...implicit communication works best in high group high grid cultures) or by providing a structure to make the rules more explicit.  In the short term, providing a structure (for example, games, tables, seating, etc.) can be effective, but I believe would be too hard to maintain in the long term.  The flip side is difficult because we are so subcnsciously inculturated in our culture that it's hard to teach what everyone "should" already know.

    How do you feel about the fellowship hall, and what would it look like to you to share in genuine fellowship after service?

  • Does God Prefer the Poor?

    It's a question I never thought about until class the other day.  It seems like such an obvious question and I wondered why I never asked it earlier.  On the one hand, it goes against our sense of justice to believe that God would have a preference for certain people but on the other, there is no getting around that Jesus went out of His way for the poor, sick, and oppressed.

     I believe John Piper does an excellent job for the case for God's impartiality here.  The greatest element for this case is Romans 2:11, "For there is no partiality with God."  But, is the answer that simple?  If you've read any of my recent entries, you'll know, it never is.

    So this question arises from an emerging theology in South America, namely, Liberation Theology.  One of the major premises of liberation theology is that God prefers the poor, oppressed, widowed, etc. over the entitled, rich, elite, etc.  There's certainly scriptural evidence to support this:

    The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed
    -Luke 4:18

     On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    -Mark 2:17

    "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.  For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
    -Matthew 25:31-46

    We can also see it in his selection of Israel as a chosen people.  Yes, Israel was chosen to be a blessing to other nations, but they were still chosen out of many other nations.  Could it not be argued that even the doctrine of predestination has an idea of preference in it?  Also in the book of Romans, cross referencing Exodus, Paul writes:

    Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
    -Romans 9:18

    My friend posits that it only appears this way because the poor, oppressed, etc. are more receptive to God.  But if it were just an appearance, what of the verses quoted above that show he was sent to the poor, he has mercy on who he wants, etc.

    It's a conundrum for me.  I don't think it can be answered by an "and/both" since being impartial would, by definition mean, that God can not be partial.  What are your thoughts on this seeming paradox?

    Ultimately, our theology on preference is not what matters though.  What matters is that we, like Jesus, reach out to the poor, oppressed, widowed, prisoned, overlooked, downtrodden, hurting peoples.  As Jesus said before the parable of the wedding banquet:

    "But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."
    -Luke 13-14

    Start by checking out:
    http://www.onedayswages.org/

  • Is the Gospel Good News to You?

    Let me begin by defining "Gospel."  Simply put, gospel means, "good news."  In this very broad definition, is the good news simply that Christ came to earth a man, died, and rose again?  Is the good news limited to just 4 books of the Bible?

    I would like to propose that the whole of the Bible is good news.  Certainly, the 4 gospels share the good news of Christ's life but could we not argue that Romans equally shares the good news of eternal life?  Does not even Genesis show God's redemptive purpose from the begining of time and thus is good news for us?

    I would even say that Acts is good news for us in that it shows us a church community that while not perfect is living out church life in community.  It is good news that a church persecuter like Saul can be redeemed to be the greatest evangelist the world may have ever known.

    It is good news that even in the exile, God is sovereign.  It is good news that in the Psalms, we can bring our frustrations, joys, and everything else to God in song.  It is good news that we can live out our faith practically, as in the book of James.

    I believe that the whole of the Bible is good news.  And this good news may take the form of proclamation of God's goodness in Christ, or it may take the form of how to live faith in a faithless world.  Good news may even come in the form of rebuke as long as it leads to repentence and proclamation of Christ or the changing and living out of faith.

    I think thought, in our Western ability to compartmentalize and dissect we have tried to boil down the Gospel to just one small thing but the good news is so much more than a mental ascertation.  In other parts of the world, the gospel is much more practical than theological.  It is much more about how to live than it is how to think.  It is about right action, not necessarily right belief.

    Yet, we do not live in other parts of the world.  We live in the Western world.  How then does the gospel look, sound, feel to you?

Top Tags

[no tags]