soy_esteban's Xanga

Discipleship and Self-Realization

Sun, 06 Dec 2009 04:58:09 GMT

Here's a quote that basically sums up one of the major problems I've noticed since becoming a pastor.

The church has lost its ability to be a disciplined community because we're now, religiously, in a buyer's market. Christianity has to bill itself as very good for your self-realization, and that's killing us because we're not very good for your self-realization. We're good for your salvation, which is not the same thing.
-Stanley Hauerwas

In response to my preaching, I occasionally hear requests to make them more practical. More specifically, the question they want answered is: How can this gospel teaching improve my life? That is different from, how can I live in obedience to this truth of God? There's a huge difference, as Hauerwas points out, between the practical question of discipleship and the practical question about improving one's life, between discipleship and self-realization.

It seems that we've decided to view the gospel as a commodity or insight to serve us for our self-realization rather than see it as the very truth of God which demands we lose everything for it (discipleship). We should be an instrument for the gospel, not the the other way around.

Do you agree with the distinction between discipleship and self-realization?

::Esteban::

Repentance in a Christian Nation

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:20:05 GMT

I originally posted this back in June, yet it remains a relevant issue. Just recently, these critiques resurfaced when President Obama bowed to the Japanese Emperor.
------------

In the past months, while traveling through Europe, the Middle East, and South America, President Barack Obama often directly named or eluded to past actions of the United States that he deems as failures. For example...

In France, President Obama said that America "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe.
In Prague, he said America has "a moral responsibility to act" on arms control because only the U.S. has "used a nuclear weapon."
In Latin America, he said the United States had not "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors" because we "failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas."
In his speech in Cairo, he said, "I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

These and several other statements made by the President in other countries have led some here in the U.S. to say he has been on an "apology tour." They have urged him to stop the apologies and instead promote the United States and remind people of all the good it has done in the world. Further, it seems that the same voices that critique Obama's apologies and encourage the U.S.'s self-promotion are the ones who also chide him for saying the U.S. is not a Christian nation.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the thinking of Obama's critics on these points. It seems to them that a Christian nation would not behave in some of the most Christian ways--with humilty and the confession and repentance of sins. If these are removed, what then does it mean to be Christian? Is it Christian to boast and brag about the good one has done? More broadly, is it possible to be Christian without repentance and confession of sins?

Not in my backyard.

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:02:43 GMT

I'm going to get straight to my question. Is it ever acceptable for a people to say, "Sorry, we just don't want that in our home/town/city/state/country."??

This is the question I have after reading an article about how the people of Switzerland just voted to ban the building of minarets. A minaret is a tower usually attached to a mosque intended to provide Muslims a vantage point as to where the daily calls to prayer are coming from. Now, the Swiss voting public didn't ban mosques, just these towers. Many who voted to ban to minarets say they wanted to retain the architectural integrity of Switzerland. The article I read doesn't buy it, and the author gives away his final judgment on the people of Switzerland and their choice in the title, "Bigotry wins in Switzerland."

Now, it may very well be that a good number of the Swiss people are bigots or racist, I'm not sure. But I'm not convinced that simply saying, "Not in my backyard," is inherently a bigoted response.

Here are some examples worth considering.

Many neighborhoods in the U.S. have rules as to what homeowners may or may not do to their homes. Growing up, my parents were not able to have one of those large TV antennas visible from the front yard. We were not allowed to paint the house certain colors. If we wanted a bright pink house, we would have to move somewhere else.

I know of one fast-growing city that implemented a law that states every new commercial building must have a specific type of local brick or stone as a major part of its construction. Also, buildings cannot be taller than 2 floors. The Holiday Inn fought to have 3 floors, but they were denied.

A Christian family decides not to watch The Simpsons (or any other TV program). "We decided that we do not want The Simpsons playing in our house. It doesn't represent who we are or, better yet, who we want to be."

Here's my question again: Is it ever acceptable for a people to say, "Sorry, we just don't want that in our home/town/city/state/country" -OR- is it always fearful bigotry?

[edit: I removed the other questions, because they weren't necessary.]

::Esteban::

End Times, Death Prayers, and Advent

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:11:47 GMT

Here's a snippet from my sermon this past week. First week of Advent.

Our present day is abundantly supplied with millennialists and apocalyptic enthusiasts who drool over the advent of the end of the world. Many are well-meaning, but within these groups are those who are motivated less by hope than they are by a longing to see those whom they consider to be among God's unfavored finally receive their eternal justice.

Once there was a make-shift sign in front of a shop that read: "Smile! Our God is a consuming fire!"

More recently, there have been Christians praying for the death of President Obama. They make a subtle and under-handed reference to Psalm 109:8 which says, “May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership.” Seems harmless, a little joke that speaks of a hope for a new president in 3 years. But, as with any good reading of Scripture, context is everything. And the context of Psalm 109 makes it clear that the words “may his days be few” mean “may he die soon.”

Now, those who can’t wait for the final judgment out of hostility toward pagans or who dream of the death of another reveal the spirit that rules their lives. They are like the wicked old witch in the story of Hansel and Gretel, giddy at the possibility of death and destruction.

All of these people have somehow forgotten that God doesn’t take pleasure in death and destruction. Jeremiah was not giddy to bring the news of destruction to Jerusalem. They’ve forgotten that when Jesus announced Jerusalem's impending destruction, just before his donkey ride into town, he also wept.

Anyone giddy at the possibility of someone else’s death is operating by some other hope than the hope of Advent. The hope of Advent is the hope of God's love and forgiveness, of God's pursuit of sinners.

::Esteban::

Church Membership Requirements

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:05:34 GMT

Since becoming the pastor at my church, there have been a few things I've changed about how we operate. One of these changes concerns membership. In our denomination, it is very easy to become a member of a church. All you have to do is come forward during the service and proclaim your faith in Jesus with words such as, "Jesus is the Christ, my Lord and my God." There are no tests of doctrine, just a confession of faith similar to ones of the Apostles Peter and Thomas in the Bible. (Compare this to churches where doctrinal agreement or submission is required.)

I'm cool with that, but I realized that the members of the church didn't have a clue as to what it meant to be a member. They didn't know anything about the church other than what they've seen on Sunday morning. And most of them didn't know anything about the denomination.

So, while we were modifying our church constitution and bylaws, we stated that attendance at a membership class was also necessary to becoming a member of the church. Now, over the past year, I've taught 4 classes (each 3 hours long). We've had over 40 people join the church in the past 1 1/2 years. That means we've doubled in size!!

What are the membership requirements of your church? Have you gone through a membership class? Have you proclaimed your faith in front a congregation before? I'm still learning and tweaking, so any thoughts would be appreciated.

::Esteban::

Texas May Have Banned All Marriages By Accident

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:47:32 GMT

Lawmakers in Texas tried to ensure homosexuals couldn't marry, or even be recognized as married, in their state. Instead, it seems the law they passed may have in fact banned ALL marriages.

In 2005, Texas voters and the state Legislature passed a Constitutional amendment intended to ban homosexual marriage. The amendment at one point, in an attempt to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships, states: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Last we all knew, the word "identical" means "exactly equal and alike." So, something "identical…to marriage," of course, is marriage.

Taking out all the qualifiers, here's simple re-read of the phrase: "This state...may not create or recognize...marriage."

Now the politicians are arguing about whether this is a problem or not. You can read more about that here. What do you think? Is my friend who was married in Texas earlier this year actually married? Do you think Texas has a huge mess on its hands with this?

::Esteban::

St. Augustine: A Thanksgiving Reminder

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:02:51 GMT

Thanksgiving is time to stop and remember all the good things in life. The idea of giving "thanks" demands that there is someone from whom these goods things have come. You can't thank anyone for the good if they didn't give it to you. As a Christian, I believe all good things come from God's grace. And God's grace falls on both the righteous and unrighteous. So, as we think upon the things for which we are thankful, let us remember who to thank.

I find a few words from St. Augustine helpful here:

"If the things of this world delight you, praise God for them but turn your love away from them and give it to their Maker, so that in the things that please you you may not displease him."

"The good things which you love are all from God, but they are good and sweet only as long as they are used to do his will. They will rightly turn bitter if God is spurned and the things that come from him are wrongly loved."
(Confessions, book IV, chapter 12)

"Praise God from whom all blessings flow!"
Happy Thanksgiving!

::Esteban::

We Need Doctrine

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:35:31 GMT

In preparing for sermon on John 15:1-17, where Jesus states, "I am the vine, you are the branches," I came across a wonderful paragraph from the always well-written magazine Modern Reformation. The article, written by Michael Horton, talks about the rise of the interest and centrality of "discipleship" among younger Christians. I include myself in that group. In fact, we have changed "Sunday school" to be "discipleship classes" at the church I pastor.

Yet, as a Reformed theologian, Horton reminds us of the need for doctrine. Though I typically end up on the Anabaptist side of the conversation, I deeply appreciate the reminders from Reformed brothers and sisters. Here's the paragraph worth reading:We need sound doctrine, not because we are intellectualists but because we need the surprising good news that we have been saved not by our discipleship but by Christ and his work. We need this doctrine not simply to know how to be saved from God's wrath but for the knowledge of how we have been liberated from the tyranny of sin. Anyone can rise to the occasion and help to make the world a better place, but only through faith in Christ can a sinner be united to Christ and bear the fruit of the Spirit, whose fragrance penetrates this passing age with the scent of the age to come. We need the doctrine in order to know what God is doing in this time between Christ's two comings, as he gathers us to receive his good gifts through preaching and Sacrament, as we respond to him in prayer and praise, contribute to the up-building of the saints through the gifts he has given us, and reach out to the world through witness and service. (Read full article here.)
- What is the role of doctrine for Christians?
- Do you think your church over-emphasizes it or under-emphasizes it?
- Which doctrines are essential?

::Esteban::

The Reasons for Things, If They Exist

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:10:50 GMT

After an unwanted and stressful encounter, a friend finally regained composure and expressed a sense of acceptance saying, "Well, I guess everything happens for a reason."

That was the second time I'd heard that phrase this week. So this time I asked, "For what reason?"

He struggled to accept the validity question. For to say, "Everything happens for a reason," is supposed to be the period, the final punctuation, on a typically bad situation. When we can finally say this, we have reached the point of maturity, it is assumed. Nothing more can be known until the future unfolds and we can look back with 20/20 vision.

Certainly, it is good to "accept the things we cannot change," as the serenity prayer guides us, but that's different than saying the thing we cannot change (a part of "everything") has a purpose. Our future actions beyond the thing that just happened for a reason are dependent upon what we believe that reason is.

Ultimately, I find it uninteresting and unhelpful to stop at the statement, "Everything happens for a reason." It is much more revealing (and fun) to discuss what that reason/purpose might be. For example, my friend tried to explain to me that I met my fiancée so that we'd get married. Feeling ornery, I annoyingly said, "No, we did not meet to get married. We met because one day I want to own goat and she'll be the one to own it with me. We have not reached our fate until that comes to pass. Marriage is simply a way to keep her around until then."

What we believe the purpose of a thing is will guide our future actions beyond that thing. If we believe the car crash happened so that we could learn to rely on God more, then we'll attempt to rely on God more. If we believe the car crash happened so that we could get a new car, then we'll get a new car. If we believe the car crash happened so that we'd be forced to a see and doctor and find out we have cancer, then the purpose has already been accomplished.

And this may be exactly why we don't ask the follow up question too often. It is impossible for us to know the exact purpose of each thing that happens in life, if there even is one. Virtue, in this case, is simply trusting that something out there has something good in mind.

I respond in an ornery way to this phrase, in fact, not because I don't believe we can't know the intended purpose of things, but because I simply don't believe "everything" has an intended purpose. I believe crap happens. I don't believe God operates in Scripture according to the ethical stance of "the ends justify the means." "This this bad thing happened so that I could learn ______."

Instead, I believe we can learn from everything, but I can't believe that our learning (or whatever outcome their might be) was the purpose of the event in the first place. I believe that God makes good come from bad, through his grace, but not that the bad was put in place so that good could be learned.

What do you think? Does everything happen for a reason? Do you use this phrase? If so, what types of reasons are worth considering?

::Esteban::

Why I Waited to Say, "I Love You"

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:55:22 GMT

This past Saturday when I proposed to my girlfriend, not only did our relationship move from “dating” to “engaged,” but also from “I like you” to “I love you.” I had decided to wait to say, “I love you,” until I proposed, because I wanted her to know that when I say, “I love you,” I’m making a promise, not just expressing a flood of warm feelings I’m hoping she’ll share. I wanted my saying it to be different from how it is usually said in our society.

Too many times when we say, “I love you,” we are speaking from our insecurities. We say it waiting for the other person to say it back. It’s a life-line we throw out hoping the person will reel us in. If s/he says it back, we feel safe. If not, we feel lost, alone, or empty. In this fashion, “I love you” becomes more of an emotional weapon and can cause us to act from our insecurities. We need a little pick-me-up so we want our significant other to say "I love you." If s/he doesn't say it, then we remain down. Over time, this is a huge strain on any relationship, it becomes a battle.

I wanted my fiancée to know that when I say, “I love you,” she doesn’t need to respond. At least, that’s not why I’m saying it. It’s a promise I’m making to her. “I promise to love you.” My “yes” will be “yes.” I promise to be patient and kind, not to be envious, boastful, or proud. I promise not to be rude, self-seeking, or easily angered. I will keep no record of wrongs. I promise to protect you and trust you, always hoping and persevering.

::Esteban::