Skip to content

Monthly Archives for May 2006

Abraham’s own personal, individual, shrink-wrapped and signed by the artist relationship with God

The LORD said to Abram: Leave your country, your family, and your relatives and go to the land that I will show you. I will bless you and make your descendants into a great nation. You will become famous and be a blessing to others. I will bless anyone who blesses you, but I will put a curse on anyone who puts a curse on you. Everyone on earth will be blessed because of you. Gen 12:1-3

In considering the individual nature of our relationship with God in the context of the corporate nature of the church, the example of Abram is worth considering (which is why I mentioned it). Abram live in a place and time where an individual relationship with a “god” was unheard of; there were family gods (referenced later in Genesis), and possibly local territorial gods.

What is apparent and (to me) profound in these 3 simple verses, is that God demonstrates that He:

  • was more than just a rock or hunk of wood
  • spoke to Abram “person to person,” thereby instituting a personal relationship with Abram
  • was a “mobile” God – he was not tied to that specific geographic location
  • was not a “family” God – Abram was called specifically to leave his family (although apparently that did not mean that he couldn’t bring along Sarah, Lot, etc.)

What is apparent through this and through reading the rest of the Bible, is that:

  • God’s plan was to develop a new community and that intent was key to Abram’s calling
  • God’s covenants with Abraham applied equally with Abraham’s family, hired help & descendants (circumcision speaks for itself)
  • Those who are now in Christ are included as members of that covenant (Galatians 3)

While I’m near the subject, I would strongly encourage everyone to make a study of the covenants. Most Evangelicals – referring to the narrower class of evangelicals who distinguish themselves from “traditional” protestant churches – really don’t know much about or understand the covenants, and therefore lack an understanding of the context for their own salvation.

While God’s call and interaction with Abraham does speak of an individual relationship, it is clear that Abraham was never called to be separate from the community that God also called; in fact, for Abraham, he was the originator of the community. God’s purpose with Abraham was not distinct from his purpose for the future chosen people. Abraham’s relationship with God was personal, but not individualized, the way that we western modern/post-modern people tend to view things. God definitely knew Abraham as an individual, and it is clear from Genesis that Abraham grew in his relationship with God in a personal way. However, from what I understand of the ancient world-view, Abraham never would have understood that his personal knowledge of God did not involve his family and his community, as well. Community, for Abraham, was not an ideal; community existed, and Abraham would never have considered an existence apart from community. Although God called Abraham to be a nomad, he was not the Marlborough Man, that American icon of rugged individualism. We really come from different worlds, and we don’t understand each other.

For those of us who are post-enlightenment, Western, and most of all, American, this “other-wordly” concept of community is difficult to grasp. I have somewhat of an objective understanding of it, but I know I don’t “own” it. I am acutely aware that I don’t even understand community in the same way that other non-western cultures do, much less some ancient culture. But, I’ll continue to think about it and write on this topic and who knows – I may even have a revelation.

Written on 30 May 2006 by me under My Own Personal Religion, Spiritual stuff with 2 Comments

My own personal Jesus

It’s the American way of religion (I’m not willing to actually call it Christianity), having your own personal Jesus. He’s whoever you want him to be, ready when you are, your own frozen, ready-to-microwave savior. That is what we’ve preached for years, isn’t it? “For God so loved you …?”

How about this one: God loves you so much that if you were the only sinner on Earth, Jesus would have died for you. Is that so? Not that God would have let you burn, but do you think perhaps He’d have a different plan for “individual” issues?

Sometime in the last month or so I got this little e-mail newsletter from CT / Leadership Journal with a link to an article by a theology professor named John Suk, from their Out of Ur blog, on this very issue. His main assertion is that the language of a personalized religion is actually using the language of secularization, and as a result we are making Jesus less like God and more like us. He asks:

Is this possible? Do many Christians have a personal relationship not so much with Jesus, but with something in their heads, with something that they’re comfortable with, a social construction driven by their need to go easy on themselves?

Ouch. However, if the shoe fits…

One of the results of the emphasis on our own personal Jesus is that it all too often gives way to our own personal disappointments, when our own personal genie-in-a-bottle won’t give us all of our 3 wishes. Do you know people who have “lost faith” for this very reason? I do. Not that this is the main reason to question the American personal-pan Christianity; the main reason is that the Bible doesn’t actually support this perspective.

Caveat: I am not poo-pooing any notion of a personal, individual aspect to Christianity. That would be stupid. What I am trying to get across in this series of “personal” posts is that any understanding of the personal aspect of Christianity must be first seen in the context of the universal, covenantal, corporate nature of Christianity.

There are, in fact, very important personal aspects to Christianity, which were, at best, marginalized during the “state-church” eras, as well as in many of the established churches during the 1st half of the 20th Century. Certainly the “personal” evangelical movement was helpful in reestablishing some of these things, but as is often the case, the result has been error to the opposite extreme, in part, I think, because it removed the personal aspect from the broader, covenantal nature of the church & theology.

Next I’ll try to put some of the personal aspects of faith in context, so stay tuned …

Written on 25 May 2006 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion, Spiritual stuff with 4 Comments

Give me some words we can dance to

“… or a melody that rhymes.” These lyrics from the late folksinger Steve Goodman have been rattling around in my head (lots of room in there) over the past few days. This was triggered first by a post on Musehead about the joy of poetry, A Complete and Necessary Waste of Time. Then, I read a great article in the only magazine I currently subscribe to, Cutting Edge, by John Mortensen.

Mortensen is a worship leader, who also happens to be Associate Professor of Piano at a university. He had some less than flattering opinions of many of what passes for worship songs in many of our more contemporary churches, musically, but more importantly, lyrically.

Some of his main points, with which I totally agree, are:

  • Many of our songs are self-congratulatory, expressing our pleasure at how we respond to God’s grace (“I will sing of your love forever,” “I will follow you,” etc.). He mentions that these promises sound alot like Peter’s, shortly before he denied Jesus, and wonders if we are singing in praise of our own competence.
  • Good lyrics are composed, not inspired. (That could get you stoned in some circles…)
  • Meter matters (my phrase…), as does rhyming.
  • Truth (theology) also matters.
  • Try using a little imagry. It worked for David.

He had other things to say, about musical styles, arrangements, and masspopcult, but for now, I’ll just comment on what he had to say about “the words.” That’s what we’re really talking about (although instrumental music can also assist in worship (again, it worked for David…).

We can talk forever about the content (theology) of our worship songs, or lack thereof. Many songwriters (I hesitate to call them lyricists) would be completely embarrassed to have to explain some of their lyrics. What about the oaths we make people take, unwittingly? What about, “I will follow you, never turning back?” Never? Cross your heart and hope to die?

But what about the simply stupidity of some of the songs? I’ve heard worship songs that were energetic, fun to sing, but didn’t have the foggiest idea what they were about (neither did anyone else), and the crowd would break into applause in worship. Is it worship, or just mass hysteria?

Isn’t it time to get back to some worship songs that are:

  • True
  • Theolgical (you can educate while you worship)
  • Intelligent
  • Skillfull (oh, you mean like a real lyricist?)
  • Creative
  • Poetic

Wouldn’t it be cool to have worship songs so skillfully written that you can worship to them without the music? I know that’s nearly sacriligeous. I’d probably settle for words that are true; but I’d love words that inspire.

I know Steve Goodman was being humorous when he wrote those lyrics, but he may have had something. Give me some words that we can dance to.

Written on 19 May 2006 by me under Church with 3 Comments

What did I tell you? Critics pan Da Vinci

A few weeks ago, I blogged a little about The Da Vinci Code, mentioning specifically that:

  • The main character had no depth, and Tom Hanks didn’t have the personality to give it any
  • Ian McKellen would “rule the movie”

From what I’ve read in various reviews of the movie, I was “spot on,” as the British would say. Apparently there is agreement that Hanks’ character was flat, and the movie was better when he wasn’t in it. And, Ian McKellen indeed steals the film.

Apparently Ron Howard couldn’t pull this one off; from what I’ve read, it seems that the movie tends to accentuate the book’s shortcomings. If nothing else, it will perhaps allow those Christians who were afraid of the movie to relax a bit. I’ll still probably go see it, just to see Ian McKellen.

Written on 17 May 2006 by me under Reviews with No Comments

My own personal worship experience

This past weekend I visited one of the larger, more well-known Vineyard churches. My first impression was that this was a Vineyard mall, complete with the requisite bookstore, coffee shop and various age-appropriate ministries (the Age of Specialization). This one, however, included statues, a very cool art gallery, and a grand piano in the lobby, which someone insisted on playing after church. It might have been okay, except that the acoustics were terrible, and it only served to make it extremely difficult to carry on a conversation.

Church was pretty standard, high-end Vineyard, obviously operating like a well-oiled machine (strains of “Welcome to the Machine” playing in my mind). That is, comfortable seats, large video screens on either side of the auditorium, and great sound system. The service was well-produced, and it was executed without a glitch. Announcements were minimal, and included a professional-quality video clip emphasizing one particular ministry in need of help.

In spite of the professionalism, or more probably, because of it, I did not like the musical-worship segment. So, because I’m a typical American and it’s all about me, the fact that I didn’t like it is important.

During the worship time, I was aware of several things:

  • The worship leader was not an exceptional vocalist, but competent and seemed sincere.
  • The backup vocalists were less than stellar and for the most part unnecessary.
  • The bass player, using a 5-string bass, was really good and had some very interesting techniques that I would like to learn.
  • The lead guitar player was standard-fare Vineyard, kicking out great solos in each song to “enhance” our worship experience.
  • The congregation applauded after every song.
  • The song selection was also standard Vineyard, but for the most part very up-tempo, and attempted to include both personal expression (as long as you agreed with the lyricist) and theological affirmation (“God you are great”).

And I didn’t like it. One thing I have become aware of, in spite of the fact that I am a rocker whose personal worship-playing style tends toward alt-folk-grunge, a great worship band does not enhance my worship experience, and tends to just get in the way.

The fact that I was aware of everything on my list shows that I was aware of these, I was not worshipping. When I am admiring the soaring guitar solo, I am not worshipping. Whenever the audience broke into applause, I couldn’t help wondering if they were clapping for God, or merely responding to the music (even though the worship leader threw in a “thank you, God!”). Would they have still clapped after a corporate reading of the song lyrics? (Chances are they all would have been aware of how repititious and trite many of the lyrics really were.)

If the expectation is that I have an individualized worship experience in the midst of the American Idol style worship performance, it failed. If the expectation is that I would blend with the community of saints in corporate adoration and worship, it failed. If the expectation is that the lyrics would inspire or catalyze some type of response to God, it failed. If the expectation was that I would groove to the music, it may have come close.

It seems that many rate worship in the style of the old American Bandstand show: “It had a good beat, and it’s easy to dance to.” What’s that about?

What started out as a worship revolution – bringing in a needed personal dimension to corporate worship (I am not against that) – has, I believe, turned into a worship distraction. Most of us really like Matt Redman’s “When the Music Fades” because it’s a great song.

Does anyone else see a problem here?

Written on 16 May 2006 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion with 11 Comments

My own personal church experience

In the mid-70′s I became part of what was, at that time, the currently emerging church. There were myriad groups either breaking away from established institutions, re-imaging established churches, or just coagulating on their own to form new churches. It was free, it was youthful, it was at times rebellious. The cry of the established church was “bloom where you’re planted” in an attempt to keep their own numbers from dwindling.

This was, I think, a product of the times. Even while still a part of my Lutheran church (which was heavily influenced by the Jesus movement), I became a student of these new movements, and eventually a student of the more established traditions, including the oldest, the Greek Orthodox (from my reading of history, it was the Roman church that broke away).

My thought was to find the One True Church – common sense told me that it should exist. But, I didn’t find it, and 20 years ago found myself in the Vineyard movement, where I am today. I like it because they found what has been called the “radical middle” – that place that tries to balance experience with sound theology. For the most part, the Vineyard has done that well, with a few odd turns here and there.

However, in considering the issue of an individualized Christianity, there are a couple of aspects of the current non-traditional church tradition (yes, it has now become its own tradition…) that I see as problems.

The first issue I saw as a problem very early on: without any kind of regular group affirmation of a basic creed, you could be a part of the church for years before being recognized as a heretic. A couple of people tried to insert a semi-creed in worship choruses (I-yi believe in Jesus…), but you just can’t bring yourself to sing that every week. This is not new with Vineyard-style churches – the Baptists, for example, have had this problem for years, which is why their youth are easy targets for JW’s and Mormons. Very few pastors tend to teach basic Christian doctrine (that’s so boring), choosing instead for a topic-of-the-month. You can be an expert on personal finance and tithing, but still not know that Jesus actually is God.

The other issue is the worship style. I’m not talking about musical style, but the “do your own thing” right of expression thing that we do: Feel free to sit, stand, raise your hands, kneel or dance, as you feel led… Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing, in and of itself. But, I’m wondering if this “freedom” has just added to the individualized, isolationist Christianity that we now see. The whole purpose in coming to church was to engage in corporate worship – you’ve always had the opportunity to worship as you saw fit at home. Sunday morning was a corporate expression of the church, doing the same thing, reciting creeds together, and singing unsingable songs as we rose and sat and whatever, together. It was not only an expression of worship, it was an expression of community- you simply couldn’t do this on your own.

Today, I can go to church, and not “be there” at the same time. I don’t have to stand if I don’t want to. Certainly there’s something to adding your voice to a hundred or more other voices- that’s at least a taste of corporate worship. However, the attitude of corporateness just isn’t there. There’s not even a real expectation of a corporate experience – it’s all really focused on the individual. Plus, a lot of the songs are theological hash, so I find that often I can’t even bring myself to sing along.

Perhaps these are reasons why these churches are always talking about the lack of community, trying to get people into small groups, and so on. How can you encourage community when you spend Sunday mornings encouraging individualism?

These are just thoughts in progress from an admitted rugged individualist. There will be more …

Written on 11 May 2006 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion with 4 Comments

My own personal testimony

I was raised a Lutheran, which, I found out later in life, was a good thing. Essentially, Lutheran theology is pretty sound. Now, I’m not saying anything about the current state of that institution, as I haven’t been to a Lutheran church in probably 20 years or more (the last time was probably to a funeral). I’m just saying that core Lutheran theology – the theology you’ll find dating back a few hundred years – is good stuff.

But, then the Jesus movement hit, and I was bombarded with teachings all centered around the need for me to have a “personal” relationship with Jesus, and a “personal” testimony. It was no longer good enough just to believe the truth. It’s tough for a Lutheran kid to all of a sudden be surrounded by people who could tell you the exact moment they were “saved.” My testimony, on the other hand, was pretty bland. “Well, I was raised in church, and believe in Jesus, and, well, that’s about it.” No big sins, no major doubts, I never dabbled in Satan worship or did drugs (although as weird as I am, some people refuse to believe this). I was just a good Lutheran kid. My Baptist friends doubted I was saved.

The Jesus Movement led to the Great Evangelical Swell that has now engulfed us, and even a whole lot of Lutherans now have personal testimonies. In America (I can only speak of what I know), Christianity has become a personal, if not personalized religion; that is, American Evangelical theology is built around an individual experience or understanding of the Gospel, and around a personal experience of forgiveness. It’s not enough to be able to state (with meaning) the Nicene or Apostles’ Creed; a higher form of belief is to be able to say, “I once was lost but now I’m found, and my life is so much better now.”

You know what? Personal testimonies are not necessarily bad things; but there’d better be something better than your personal testimony, because to be honest, your experience, and your understanding, and your own personal faith are not really all that impressive. Do you know how many people avoid church just because of the testimony of Christians? Do you get what I’m saying here?

Furthermore, personal testimonies tend to change with the circumstances. I’m not talking about the rehearsed speech you may have about the day you went forward at a rock concert- I’m talking about your current, ongoing Christian experience. It may be okay today, but what about next week? What happens with life turns upside-down, and your “fruit” sours, or your faith waivers, or depression hits? It happens, people!

A “personal” testimony – the natural result of a “personal” religion – is faulty because your testimony and your religion are not founded on Jesus; it’s all based on you and your perceptions, and often what you want to believe. Our experiences and our perceptions are just not very reliable. To say, “I believe this because I experienced that” may work in this culture, where personal experience is paramount. However, personal experience is not an adequate foundation.

In this culture, we tend to think we can have the kind of religion that we want. However, it doesn’t matter what kind of God you want to worship. It doesn’t matter if you happen to choose to believe in a pre-trib rapture or in a 10,000% return on your tithe (yeah, I heard that guaranteed on TBN last week). It doesn’t matter what kind of experience you want with your religion. It doesn’t matter if you want to believe in a pacifist God, or in a judgmental, finger-pointing God. God never asked you what kind of a God you wanted…

That same preacher who guaranteed the amazing return on your giving (only if you sent it to him, though) also said something quite profound: “If something is true, it’s true for everybody.” Bingo!

What I’m not saying

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with having a personal connection with God, a personal experience of God, a warm feeling in your heart, or whatever. There is definitely to be a personal aspect to our relationship with God, including some kind of personal experience. In his various letters, Paul seems to assume that people do have some kind of personal experience when they receive the Holy Spirit, and in Galatians 3, he asks that they think back: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit by obeying the law, or because you believed?” It’s good, it’s fine, it’s a normal Christian experience.

What I am saying

However, my point remains: you can’t base your Christianity just on your experience, or just on your own testimony. There’s something better. When your life is in crisis or your faith comes under attack, you need something a bit more solid than, “well, I believed (or felt, or experienced) that once.”

You need God’s testimony. That’s why the Bible is so important. Way back in Genesis, God kept reminding people of His testimony: “I am the God who …” Read through the Gospel of John; the whole focus of the book is to present God’s testimony of who Jesus is, and why he came. (The other books in the Bible do the same thing.)

What you want, what you believe, and what you’ve experienced, is largely immaterial. The demons believe, Hindus have experience. What God believes is critical.

Would you like to know my personal testimony? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God …”

Written on 02 May 2006 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion, Spiritual stuff with 10 Comments