Some of you will remember the story about the Apostle Paul in Athens, having a conversation with people about the "unknown God" they were worshiping. The story is in Acts 17, and I've always thought it was interesting. Here Paul sees all of the worship of other gods in the city, and he gets upset. So he's wandering around talking about Jesus to anyone who will listen. Eventually, the people become curious enough to bring him to the place where things like this are discussed, and he's invited to speak. And instead of criticizing their belief system, Paul looks for the truth in it. He sees that they have an alter to an unknown God. And Paul names Yahweh as this unknown God and speaks to them about Jesus and his resurrection from the dead.
Why didn't Paul tell them that the other gods weren't alive? The Jewish belief system was strongly monotheistic, having no room for any God but Yahweh. Why didn't he tell them that their worship of idols was worthless and that to have salvation they had to give up their own gods and follow his? Why didn't he try to change their whole culture and belief system first?
Instead, Paul explained the resurrection and introduced the person of Jesus and Yahweh and invited people to follow. And I think we can learn a lot from this. I often feel the message that I get from churches or from the Christian community is that a person has to become culturally Christian before they can follow Jesus. They have to believe everything I do about morality and theology in order to take that step into the kingdom. But I don't think this is true. Jesus took people where they were, invited them to follow, and then he gave them teaching so that they could grow into believing who he actually is. Even the disciples believed that he was a political (rather than spiritual) savior when they first followed Christ. But what was important was that they followed him--they learned to hear his voice and to obey and follow, and all the rest of it came later. I would argue that morality and theology are a result of following Jesus not a prerequisite to it.
What do you think? Is your invitation for others to follow Jesus normally cluttered with expectations about what they believe or how they behave? What would happen if you just introduced people to Jesus and then let Jesus and his teachings challenge their morality and theology?
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Friday, November 26, 2010
How do you walk with God?
So the question I was left with is how do you walk with God? How do you know when he's leading you?
The reason this is a problem is because, although I'm probably a postmodern person, I grew up with modern parents who taught me to lead with my mind and allow my heart and spirit to follow. The answer to my question in my home would be to read Gary Meador's book about knowing the will of God. If I'm remembering correctly, the basic premise is that within the moral and ethical boundaries God has given in his word, I can choose to do anything I want to. There is no "will of God" beyond that. I saw my parents make decisions like this. They would pray about things, they would use their rational minds to think about things, and then they would make the good/wise/right decisions within the boundaries of morality and ethics.
I don't know how this happened, but I actually believe that the Spirit also speaks into a person's life, if she is listening, and can specifically lead and guide. I think there's biblical evidence that this at least happened in biblical times--even the apostle Paul speaks about being led by the Spirit when he's heading on his missionary journeys. But my parents had great skepticism about this, mostly because of how immeasurable it is and how you can easily misinterpret your own experiences.
So anyway, most of my life I've lived in a way that I would call is "sensitive to the Spirit's leading", where I make choices about what to do and say based on how I believe the Spirit is specifically leading me.
But this year brought up that question for me again. Because if I'm going to allow that God means to use people to meet needs in the world, and if I'm going to allow that I should only be doing the things that I'm led to, rather than trying to meet everyone's needs all the time, I have to figure this out, right?
So I was drawn again to the passage of John 15, about abiding in Christ. And I remembered Galatians 5, which talks about walking in step with the spirit. What I noticed is that there is very little explanation of what this means. We're admonished to walk in step with the Spirit, to abide in Christ, but the passages don't really paint a picture besides those word pictures of being connected to the vine or walking in step with something.
So I'm left to interpret these passages in the light of the whole of Scripture. So I think of Adam and Eve, walking with God in relationship in the garden. I think of Noah, who somehow knew God and had enough faith in him to build a boat when he'd never seen any rain. I think of Enoch, who walked with God at such a deep level that he never died. And then I think of those 400 years of the silence of God when the Israelites were in captivity. And I think of the 400 years between the last prophet and Jesus coming. And then I think of how the Holy Spirit came to believers at Pentecost and is now living inside of us.
And what I have to conclude is that God doesn't just plop us here, wind us up like little wind-up toys, and let us go to do the moral and ethical things. What I see from the overarching narrative of Scripture is that God does want a deeper connection with his people - a connection that acknowledges him and submits to him in all things. I do believe, not just from Scripture but also from my own experience, that God does lead and guide and give specific direction sometimes. I think I have to know him and abide with him to the extent that I'm able to recognize his voice in my life.
That does defy measurement. It can lead me to pretty crazy places if I am not listening to the right things or am just confused. But just because it's hard doesn't mean that we should get rid of the idea all together. In the body of Christ, in Scripture, in the orthodox faith throughout history, I think we have some boundaries and some ways to measure what's truly from God.
So that's where I've landed on this issue. I continue to struggle with the ideas. But the bigger struggle is actually a heart struggle, and that's actually being willing to wake up every morning and ask the Spirit to lead and to guide, and then being willing to follow where he leads.
The reason this is a problem is because, although I'm probably a postmodern person, I grew up with modern parents who taught me to lead with my mind and allow my heart and spirit to follow. The answer to my question in my home would be to read Gary Meador's book about knowing the will of God. If I'm remembering correctly, the basic premise is that within the moral and ethical boundaries God has given in his word, I can choose to do anything I want to. There is no "will of God" beyond that. I saw my parents make decisions like this. They would pray about things, they would use their rational minds to think about things, and then they would make the good/wise/right decisions within the boundaries of morality and ethics.
I don't know how this happened, but I actually believe that the Spirit also speaks into a person's life, if she is listening, and can specifically lead and guide. I think there's biblical evidence that this at least happened in biblical times--even the apostle Paul speaks about being led by the Spirit when he's heading on his missionary journeys. But my parents had great skepticism about this, mostly because of how immeasurable it is and how you can easily misinterpret your own experiences.
So anyway, most of my life I've lived in a way that I would call is "sensitive to the Spirit's leading", where I make choices about what to do and say based on how I believe the Spirit is specifically leading me.
But this year brought up that question for me again. Because if I'm going to allow that God means to use people to meet needs in the world, and if I'm going to allow that I should only be doing the things that I'm led to, rather than trying to meet everyone's needs all the time, I have to figure this out, right?
So I was drawn again to the passage of John 15, about abiding in Christ. And I remembered Galatians 5, which talks about walking in step with the spirit. What I noticed is that there is very little explanation of what this means. We're admonished to walk in step with the Spirit, to abide in Christ, but the passages don't really paint a picture besides those word pictures of being connected to the vine or walking in step with something.
So I'm left to interpret these passages in the light of the whole of Scripture. So I think of Adam and Eve, walking with God in relationship in the garden. I think of Noah, who somehow knew God and had enough faith in him to build a boat when he'd never seen any rain. I think of Enoch, who walked with God at such a deep level that he never died. And then I think of those 400 years of the silence of God when the Israelites were in captivity. And I think of the 400 years between the last prophet and Jesus coming. And then I think of how the Holy Spirit came to believers at Pentecost and is now living inside of us.
And what I have to conclude is that God doesn't just plop us here, wind us up like little wind-up toys, and let us go to do the moral and ethical things. What I see from the overarching narrative of Scripture is that God does want a deeper connection with his people - a connection that acknowledges him and submits to him in all things. I do believe, not just from Scripture but also from my own experience, that God does lead and guide and give specific direction sometimes. I think I have to know him and abide with him to the extent that I'm able to recognize his voice in my life.
That does defy measurement. It can lead me to pretty crazy places if I am not listening to the right things or am just confused. But just because it's hard doesn't mean that we should get rid of the idea all together. In the body of Christ, in Scripture, in the orthodox faith throughout history, I think we have some boundaries and some ways to measure what's truly from God.
So that's where I've landed on this issue. I continue to struggle with the ideas. But the bigger struggle is actually a heart struggle, and that's actually being willing to wake up every morning and ask the Spirit to lead and to guide, and then being willing to follow where he leads.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The blurry lenses of culture
When I was 13 years old, my family moved overseas, to Singapore, to live. It was a really interesting time to leave my home country and find myself plopped down into a whole new world.
I was a pretty contemplative, observant kid, and so I just soaked in the culture. I watched what people did. I listened to what people said. I began to separate culture from beliefs, from worldview, and from values. I remember learning about the parlimentary system there, and how there are multiple parties, but only one ever has been (and probably ever will be) in power. I remember asking to use the bathroom and having a lady lead me back to her bedroom suite, the only bathroom that had a bathtub. I remember reading American magazines that were painting dark skin as desirable, and then hanging out with my Singaporean friends who were jealous because of how pale I was (yes, really!).
I think it was about then that I realized how we so often want exactly what we don't have. And our whole culture values something that is scarce to us, but could be abundant somewhere else. And I think it made me look at everything differently. It made me question which of my beliefs were truly true, and which we just held on to because they were comfortable to our culture. It made me wonder whether what my culture told me about beauty was really true.
Similarly, when I went to church in Singapore, I found that they focused on different "truths" than we did here. What they were totally concerned about was in the Bible, but we just didn't pay as much attention to it as they did. That made me wonder how we decide what is the most important. Everyone says that they are taking what they believe straight out of the Bible. But my life experience caused me to question which really came first... did my church really look at the Bible and then allow it to form our culture and beliefs? Or did my culture and cultural beliefs form what my church thought was important and worth emphasizing?
This experience forced me to conclude that we really do read a lot into what we believe is "truth." Based on our culture, our experiences, our lives, our values... we take those things with us when we read. If I come from a culture that values community over individualism (like Singapore), I'm going to read about the call to Christian community with totally different expectations than I will as a Westerner. The Westerners that I know can't even conceive of the reality of living 12 people to a 3-bedroom flat, and all the cooperation that entails.
Technology has made the world smaller. One of the consequences of that is that people are confronted with different ways of living and believing and existing at a really young age. For me that experience was a shock to the system - I was thrust into another culture where I couldn't help but recognize the differences. Today's generations are growing up exposed to all different worldviews and tolerating those is fairly natural. I think this probably contributes to the skepticism about "absolute truth." As I've said before, I think it's less an issue of people believing there is no absolute truth, and more an issue of thinking there's no way to know what that is. How can I really separate myself so utterly and completely from my own life experience, values, and culture to be able to say that I know for sure what that passage really means? And if you try to tell me that you are completely separating yourself, I'll probably laugh at you.
So what does all this mean? I think the beginning of every conversation about truth has to be the admission that I see through my own experiences and culture. If we can agree about that, then maybe we can begin to talk about our different perceptions and how to figure out what the truth is, even though we know that we can't find it perfectly. Until then, I think that modernists and post-modern, post-Christian people are just going to keep talking past each other.
I was a pretty contemplative, observant kid, and so I just soaked in the culture. I watched what people did. I listened to what people said. I began to separate culture from beliefs, from worldview, and from values. I remember learning about the parlimentary system there, and how there are multiple parties, but only one ever has been (and probably ever will be) in power. I remember asking to use the bathroom and having a lady lead me back to her bedroom suite, the only bathroom that had a bathtub. I remember reading American magazines that were painting dark skin as desirable, and then hanging out with my Singaporean friends who were jealous because of how pale I was (yes, really!).
I think it was about then that I realized how we so often want exactly what we don't have. And our whole culture values something that is scarce to us, but could be abundant somewhere else. And I think it made me look at everything differently. It made me question which of my beliefs were truly true, and which we just held on to because they were comfortable to our culture. It made me wonder whether what my culture told me about beauty was really true.
Similarly, when I went to church in Singapore, I found that they focused on different "truths" than we did here. What they were totally concerned about was in the Bible, but we just didn't pay as much attention to it as they did. That made me wonder how we decide what is the most important. Everyone says that they are taking what they believe straight out of the Bible. But my life experience caused me to question which really came first... did my church really look at the Bible and then allow it to form our culture and beliefs? Or did my culture and cultural beliefs form what my church thought was important and worth emphasizing?
This experience forced me to conclude that we really do read a lot into what we believe is "truth." Based on our culture, our experiences, our lives, our values... we take those things with us when we read. If I come from a culture that values community over individualism (like Singapore), I'm going to read about the call to Christian community with totally different expectations than I will as a Westerner. The Westerners that I know can't even conceive of the reality of living 12 people to a 3-bedroom flat, and all the cooperation that entails.
Technology has made the world smaller. One of the consequences of that is that people are confronted with different ways of living and believing and existing at a really young age. For me that experience was a shock to the system - I was thrust into another culture where I couldn't help but recognize the differences. Today's generations are growing up exposed to all different worldviews and tolerating those is fairly natural. I think this probably contributes to the skepticism about "absolute truth." As I've said before, I think it's less an issue of people believing there is no absolute truth, and more an issue of thinking there's no way to know what that is. How can I really separate myself so utterly and completely from my own life experience, values, and culture to be able to say that I know for sure what that passage really means? And if you try to tell me that you are completely separating yourself, I'll probably laugh at you.
So what does all this mean? I think the beginning of every conversation about truth has to be the admission that I see through my own experiences and culture. If we can agree about that, then maybe we can begin to talk about our different perceptions and how to figure out what the truth is, even though we know that we can't find it perfectly. Until then, I think that modernists and post-modern, post-Christian people are just going to keep talking past each other.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Truth?
So here's an example of what I mean about missing the point about how people view truth. I was recently at the National Outreach Convention put on by Outreach Magazine. While in one of the main sessions, they played this video for us.
I'm just not sure that in real life people actually believe that 2+2 does not equal 4. I don't think that people question facts and reality. The major issue I see is that people are struggling with how to identify truth when it comes to you. There is admittedly a much bigger reliance on personal experience than authority when examining truth. But if something is true, then shouldn't it work in real life too? Is it really enough for true things just to make rational sense?
Let me bring this down to what it actually looks like in my own life. I had a conversation with a Calvinist who I love and respect. I don't subscribe to Calvinism for several reasons, which are somewhat beside the point here. Anyway, we were talking about Calvinism, and he said to me, "Calvinists today aren't really following Calvin. They've gotten away from the fundamentals that Calvin believed." I think he was trying to make me feel better about Calvin's Calvinism. So then I said, "um, yeah, but didn't Calvin kill a bunch of people who didn't believe the way he did?" And he said, "Yeah. He was a little cold."
Um. Ok.
So here's the thing. I can't espouse a belief that, when carried to its logical conclusion, coldly kills off people who don't believe the same way. I think that's antithetical to God's very character and being. I think that right beliefs lead to right actions. If experience is wrong, then something has to be wrong in the thinking too.
That doesn't mean that I don't believe in truth. What I would say about truth is that it is a person. Jesus said that he is the way, the truth, and the life. I know true by measuring things against Jesus and what is revealed about him in the Bible.
At the same time, I fully admit that how I perceive truth is limited to my own experience and beliefs. If I had been abused as a child and had my father beating and belittling me all the time (which didn't happen), I would have a very hard time perceiving God my Father any differently than that. That doesn't change the truth of God's character or being. But it does limit my ability to perceive and experience his love. Every word and every consequence of sin that's in the Bible is going to look like judgment to me.
Similarly, growing up in the Western world, the values and culture that I experienced totally affect how I perceive God. For the first 15 years of my life, I thought of Jesus as a white man. It wasn't until I was outside my own culture, living overseas in an Asian country, that I actually realized that Jesus was Middle Eastern and probably closer in culture to that country than my home one. And what a shock to my system that was. But how easy it is to read into our understanding of truth and reality what we're bringing in from other places--namely our experiences and our culture.
So what I am trying to say is that in my own conversations with people today, I don't have the sense that they question the existence of absolute truth. I have the sense that they are cognizant of their own biases, prejudices, and limitations, and are hesitant to say that they know for sure that what they believe is true. They'll also laugh in your face if you deny those biases and perceptions of your own and how they impact your own perception of truth.
My hope would be that we can move beyond this fight about absolute truth, which I doubt is at issue for the average person on the street, and begin to walk with people as they attempt to figure out how to know what truth is. I think that we have a lot to offer there, and I think it's sad that we're wasting our energy on something that's not at issue.
I'm just not sure that in real life people actually believe that 2+2 does not equal 4. I don't think that people question facts and reality. The major issue I see is that people are struggling with how to identify truth when it comes to you. There is admittedly a much bigger reliance on personal experience than authority when examining truth. But if something is true, then shouldn't it work in real life too? Is it really enough for true things just to make rational sense?
Let me bring this down to what it actually looks like in my own life. I had a conversation with a Calvinist who I love and respect. I don't subscribe to Calvinism for several reasons, which are somewhat beside the point here. Anyway, we were talking about Calvinism, and he said to me, "Calvinists today aren't really following Calvin. They've gotten away from the fundamentals that Calvin believed." I think he was trying to make me feel better about Calvin's Calvinism. So then I said, "um, yeah, but didn't Calvin kill a bunch of people who didn't believe the way he did?" And he said, "Yeah. He was a little cold."
Um. Ok.
So here's the thing. I can't espouse a belief that, when carried to its logical conclusion, coldly kills off people who don't believe the same way. I think that's antithetical to God's very character and being. I think that right beliefs lead to right actions. If experience is wrong, then something has to be wrong in the thinking too.
That doesn't mean that I don't believe in truth. What I would say about truth is that it is a person. Jesus said that he is the way, the truth, and the life. I know true by measuring things against Jesus and what is revealed about him in the Bible.
At the same time, I fully admit that how I perceive truth is limited to my own experience and beliefs. If I had been abused as a child and had my father beating and belittling me all the time (which didn't happen), I would have a very hard time perceiving God my Father any differently than that. That doesn't change the truth of God's character or being. But it does limit my ability to perceive and experience his love. Every word and every consequence of sin that's in the Bible is going to look like judgment to me.
Similarly, growing up in the Western world, the values and culture that I experienced totally affect how I perceive God. For the first 15 years of my life, I thought of Jesus as a white man. It wasn't until I was outside my own culture, living overseas in an Asian country, that I actually realized that Jesus was Middle Eastern and probably closer in culture to that country than my home one. And what a shock to my system that was. But how easy it is to read into our understanding of truth and reality what we're bringing in from other places--namely our experiences and our culture.
So what I am trying to say is that in my own conversations with people today, I don't have the sense that they question the existence of absolute truth. I have the sense that they are cognizant of their own biases, prejudices, and limitations, and are hesitant to say that they know for sure that what they believe is true. They'll also laugh in your face if you deny those biases and perceptions of your own and how they impact your own perception of truth.
My hope would be that we can move beyond this fight about absolute truth, which I doubt is at issue for the average person on the street, and begin to walk with people as they attempt to figure out how to know what truth is. I think that we have a lot to offer there, and I think it's sad that we're wasting our energy on something that's not at issue.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Assumptions
I think it's only fair to begin by disclosing my assumptions--at least one pretty big assumption--that not everyone will agree with. I'm coming into a conversation that's been going on for quite a while, and there are some things I don't want to get bogged down with as I continue to write.
Primarily, I recognize that there is a lot of disagreement out there about the approach to absolute truth. Maybe a better way to say this is that the majority of people have decided that the main problem with younger generations is their presumed disbelief in absolute truth. The way the conversation is going, it seems like that is where everyone is spending all of their time. It's almost as if they believe that the rational assent to absolute truth, as it is currently defined by our rational western culture, is necessary for belie. So, when speaking to the younger generation or telling others how to do so, the bulk of energy appears to be going to the argument about absolute truth.
But I think that we're missing the point--for several reasons. First, I'm not sure that we have identified the right issue. A great hew and cry was raised after Neitche's "God is dead." And logically, true postmodernism probably does deny that absolute truth is possible. But I'm not sure that's where the people on the ground really are. In my experience, people allow for the reality of truth--even absolute truth--they just aren't sure that they have it figured out. And they view the claim that you do know what absolute truth is as the worst kind of arrogance. So I wonder whether we all aren't closer together than we think, but we're getting stuck on the different language we use.
Second, and probably more important for our future discussions, culture exists. It is. Every one of them has ways that they reflect God's values and character more than others. Similarly, every one of them has ways that they violate the essential character and values of God. But I'm not sure that fighting culture is the answer. I don't actually think you can win. Culture goes to the very core of our beings and forms the basis for our assumptions.
But culture can be redeemed as the people within it are redeemed and restored to the image of God.
So that's where I'm headed in this conversation. I have accepted that this culture--the one we're in right now--exists for this time and place. And we're just going to have to live and walk with God within it. As we are redeemed and restored i his image, we can pray that he will do the same with our culture through us.
There are lots of forums where we can talk about how the world has changed and why reason is superior to experience and all those other things. But we live in a world where experience is more important than reason, where life is more about what you do that what you say you believe. My burning passion is to figure out how to speak about God in this context, how to walk with God in a meaningful way, and how to walk with others on their spiritual journeys here and now. Today.
I hope you'll consider walking with me for a while.
Primarily, I recognize that there is a lot of disagreement out there about the approach to absolute truth. Maybe a better way to say this is that the majority of people have decided that the main problem with younger generations is their presumed disbelief in absolute truth. The way the conversation is going, it seems like that is where everyone is spending all of their time. It's almost as if they believe that the rational assent to absolute truth, as it is currently defined by our rational western culture, is necessary for belie. So, when speaking to the younger generation or telling others how to do so, the bulk of energy appears to be going to the argument about absolute truth.
But I think that we're missing the point--for several reasons. First, I'm not sure that we have identified the right issue. A great hew and cry was raised after Neitche's "God is dead." And logically, true postmodernism probably does deny that absolute truth is possible. But I'm not sure that's where the people on the ground really are. In my experience, people allow for the reality of truth--even absolute truth--they just aren't sure that they have it figured out. And they view the claim that you do know what absolute truth is as the worst kind of arrogance. So I wonder whether we all aren't closer together than we think, but we're getting stuck on the different language we use.
Second, and probably more important for our future discussions, culture exists. It is. Every one of them has ways that they reflect God's values and character more than others. Similarly, every one of them has ways that they violate the essential character and values of God. But I'm not sure that fighting culture is the answer. I don't actually think you can win. Culture goes to the very core of our beings and forms the basis for our assumptions.
But culture can be redeemed as the people within it are redeemed and restored to the image of God.
So that's where I'm headed in this conversation. I have accepted that this culture--the one we're in right now--exists for this time and place. And we're just going to have to live and walk with God within it. As we are redeemed and restored i his image, we can pray that he will do the same with our culture through us.
There are lots of forums where we can talk about how the world has changed and why reason is superior to experience and all those other things. But we live in a world where experience is more important than reason, where life is more about what you do that what you say you believe. My burning passion is to figure out how to speak about God in this context, how to walk with God in a meaningful way, and how to walk with others on their spiritual journeys here and now. Today.
I hope you'll consider walking with me for a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)